axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <>
Subject RE: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/test/functional TestTransportSample .java
Date Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:41:36 GMT
Glen Daniels wrote:
> This is fine with me for now, although I would still like to see the "map
> transports by protocol" functionality there, even for user-defined
> protocols.  As I mentioned earlier, the two ways to do this which don't
> involve registering a new URLStreamHandlerFactory are setting the system
> property which tells the URL class to look in a custom transport
> for StreamHandlers, or parsing the URL string ourselves before we try
> turning it into a URL.  The former is more in-line with "Javaness", the
> latter is probably somewhat easier.

My input is that setting up a custom transport directory for StreamHandlers
will have observable side effects that could cause user developed
WebServices or client applications to fail. Not to mention that what you
are describing isn't really intending to map a protocol to a StreamHandler
but to an Axis Handler.

This "misinterpretation" of the protocol part of the URL also has subtle
implications.  When using a LocalSender intending to route to a JWS, my
temptation would be to set the URL to something like "file:///foo.jws", or
perhaps even a relative URL like "foo.jws".

>From a purist point of view, if we have a parameter or a property in which
we expect a URL, then we should expect something which we could validly
pass directly to the constructor and be consistent with any
user provided custom handlers.  Perhaps we could then reasonably *DEFAULT*
the transport used based on the protocol found in URL, but we should
provide an alternate means to explicitly specify the transport.

To net this out: while I am a bit concerned, I don't outright object - as
long as all of the ramifications are thought out and addressed.

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  I am very serious about the request that if this is function that you
care about, it needs to have either a unit or function test covering it.

View raw message