axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yuhichi Nakamura" <NAKAM...@jp.ibm.com>
Subject RE: Architecture consideration
Date Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:58:28 GMT

Glen,
I see.  So the core portion should not rely on J2EE.
We may provide some add-on components to bring Axis engine to J2EE.
Let me try.  If I have some problems in the core, let's discuss.
As for mulitple transport supports, we need some adaptor between engine
and transport.  With the adaport, you can configure your server either in
an embedded fashion, or in a separated one.
Regards,

Yuhichi Nakamura
IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Tel: +81-462-73-4668


From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com> on 2001/04/17 00:44

Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org

To:   "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: Architecture consideration



I agree with your requirements, Yuhichi.

I also strongly agree with avoiding the need for a full J2EE solution.  In
fact, I would prefer the Axis engine to be able to run without a servlet
container, assuming you have other transports available.  If we design this
thing in a modular enough fashion, we should be able to support the use
case
of embedding a (pretty tiny) Axis engine into an application which accepts
SOAP requests over a raw TCP socket, or running it standalone in a
differnet
JVM as Yuhichi suggests below.

--G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuhichi Nakamura [mailto:NAKAMURY@jp.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:47 AM
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Architecture consideration
>
>
>
> I have two requirements.
> First, AxisEngine instance(s) should be through multiple transports,
> i.e. an engine might be accessed via HTTP and SMTP, so that it
> can be easily maintained.  This does not lead us to EJB directly,
> rather we need to get AxisEngine worked in an different JVM, and it
> is accessed by tranport listener via some means tcp/ip, rmi, etc.
> Second, from security perspective, I want to rely on some
> solid security architecture, especiallly authorization.
> I think that J2EE satisfies the requirements, and is more importantly
> fairly promised.  With J2EE, it is very natural to provide the engine
> as EJB object.
> Furthermore, this approach does not impact on the current
> architecture.
> The current stuff (non-EJB) is still valid.
> Regards,
>
> Yuhichi Nakamura
> IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
> Tel: +81-462-73-4668
>
>
> From: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com> on 2001/04/13 20:34
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To:   axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Architecture consideration
>
>
>
> Perhaps someone could go into a little more details here
> for me.  When you guys talk about making sure that Axis can
> play in an Enterprise solution (EJBs...) what does that
> mean?  Take Apache SOAP v2, using the EJB pluggable providers
> it can use EJBs, but I'm assuming you guys mean more to it
> than that, right?  Does it mean that the entry point into
> the SOAP server needs to be an EJB?  What are the list of
> requirements that you guys need fulfilled?
> thanks,
> -Dug
>
>
> "Yuhichi Nakamura" <NAKAMURY@jp.ibm.com> on 04/12/2001 09:42:02 PM
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To:   axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Architecture consideration
>
>
>
>
> Make sense.
> So Axis should allows users to set up light-weight configrations such
> as servlet/jsp-based as well as enterprise configrations including
> EJB, JMS, etc.  Off course, basic componets should be shared as much
> as possible from Axis devloper point of view (as Dug indicated).
> Regards,
>
> Yuhichi Nakamura
> IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
> Tel: +81-46-215-4668
> Fax: +81-46-215-7413
>
>
> From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com> on
> 2001/04/13 10:13
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To:   "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Architecture consideration
>
>
>
> By "non-J2EE", I really mean servlets and JSPs without EJBs.
> (Sorry for the
> ambiguity. I should have been more specific.)
>
> I think a simple web services model for servlets can attract many
> developers
> who are not using EJBs. I would also add that even for those
> developers who
> are using more of the J2EE platform than just servlets and
> JSPs, there may
> be other non-EJB services they want to expose as a web service. For
> instance, a servlet interacting with an EIS system using a
> J2EE Connector
> interface, or perhaps a proprietary integration API.
>
> Web services have the potential to open many doors that EJBs
> cannot open.
> In
> addition, a simple web services model could attract many
> developers who are
> intimidated by the constantly growing complexity of the J2EE model.
> Certainly, though, a sound web services architecture should
> also be able to
> support those developers who need those richer J2EE services, as well.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yuhichi Nakamura [mailto:NAKAMURY@jp.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 6:05 PM
> > To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Architecture consideration
> >
> >
> >
> > Good point.
> > Can I restate "Axis is based on J2EE, but we should provide non-EJB
> > version also"?  Would you tell me what non-J2EE environments
> > means exactly?  Maybe since I am looking at enterprise applications,
> > I only see J2EE servers such JRun, WebLogic, WebSpehre, etc.
> > Which products are non-J2EE servers?
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Yuhichi Nakamura
> > IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
> > Tel: +81-46-215-4668
> > Fax: +81-46-215-7413
> >
> >
> > From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com> on
> > 2001/04/13 09:50
> >
> > Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> >
> > To:   "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> > cc:
> > Subject:  RE: Architecture consideration
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: Yuhichi Nakamura [mailto:NAKAMURY@jp.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 5:48 PM
> > > To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Architecture consideration
> > > [...]
> > > Apparently, Servlet+EJB is much slower than just Servlet.
> > > I do not know how much slow, and how acceptable.
> > > However, the direciton of application server is J2EE.  Why
> > > not based on it?
> >
> > I hope the team will consider supporting Axis in non-J2EE
> > environments. It
> > would be a mistake to think that everyone using server-side
> > Java are using
> > J2EE servers. Some folks are balking at the cost and
> > complexity of such
> > servers and just sticking with servlets.
> >
> > Axis should play well in J2EE environments, but I think
> > requiring J2EE will
> > shut out a large audience of prospective users.
> >
> > (Just my 2 cents.)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Mime
View raw message