Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 36718 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2001 23:22:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 36707 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2001 23:22:59 -0000 Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Axis, WSDL and deployment issues To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 (Intl) 21 March 2000 Message-ID: From: "Doug Davis" Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:23:02 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NM204/04/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/09/2001 07:23:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N If I understand your proposal correctly doesn't this mean that there would actually be a different way to deploy each Web resource depending on which resolver it uses? And if so, doesn't that possibly lead to a more confusing environment for people. Right now it's pretty much just one way (eg. the diff between deploying a Java service and an EJB service are the options on the Service or Handler definition in the deploy.xml file), having such a wide variety of ways of deploying Web resources could lead to more confusion, no? -Dug James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS@IBMUS on 10/08/2001 06:12:22 PM Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org cc: Subject: Axis, WSDL and deployment issues Hello all.... Ok, a few things: Over the past few weeks We (myself and a few others on the Web services team inside IBM) have been looking into the use of WSDL as a deployment mechanism for services in both Axis and more generally in the JSR109 (the JSR for Web services) context. At first, the idea was that using WSDL would add a good deal of natural symmetry on both the server and client and allow some good code reuse, but as we started to dig into what it would look like to actually use a WSDL as a deployment mechanism, the number of complexities started to rise very quickly. Quite frankly, while WSDL can be used as a way to deploy services, we're not sure that there is not enough benefit to warrant pursuing it. So my suggestion is that we just go with the approach we've already been taking -- using WSDD to deploy services, handlers, chains, etc. There is however, one change that I'd like to make that I actually pitched a couple of weeks ago and that is the creation of a pluggable resover architecture. See the attached powerpoint for a brief overview but the idea is simple: let's make the deployment of services/handlers/etc completely and totally pluggable and make it so that multiple deployment mechanisms can be used simultaneously. The pluggable resolver architecture outlined in the powerpoint is actually just an evolution of the registry/supplier architecture that we've already got in place making it far more flexible. I'm about 2/3 of the way through writing the prototype code for the resolver architecture and hope to have it ready for review by Wednesday. It's extremely slow going due to a few other things I have going at the moment (not the least of which is trying to settle into a new house). The number one advantage of the pluggable resolver architecture is flexibility. For example, It will make it easier to roll in things like JSR109 service deployment support once that specification is complete. It will also make migration from SOAP 2.x easier. When the prototype is done, I'll try to spend some more time expounding on how exactly it makes things easier. - James Snell Software Engineer, Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM James M Snell/Fresno/IBM - jasnell@us.ibm.com These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. - John 16:33