axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doug Davis" <...@us.ibm.com>
Subject RE: WSDD - proposed change
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2001 22:21:59 GMT
Right - use this "handler" in particular, so use the
word "type" in the wsdd instead of "handler" - very clear.
oh well.   ;-)
-Dug


Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com> on 11/06/2001 04:55:30 PM

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

To:   "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: WSDD - proposed change




It really maps to the RPCProvider.  Not a chain.

I think "type" makes sense because it's the type of the service you're
deploying.  That ends up defining the Handler at the pivot point of the
SOAPService, but that's an implementation detail.  For the user, I think
they just want to say "it's RPC" or "it's Message-based" or "use this
Handler in particular", with the vast majority being one of the first two.

--Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:07 PM
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: WSDD - proposed change
>
>
> What does "java:RPC" really map to? A chain?
> Is there a better word than "type" we can use that would
> make it clearer- like "chain" if "java:RPC" really does
> map to a chain with RPCDispatcher at the pivot.
> -Dug
>
> Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com> on 11/06/2001 04:02:51 PM
>
> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>
> To:   "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> cc:
> Subject:  WSDD - proposed change
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to make service deployment easier - WSDD is great
> (and simple!) in
> a number of ways, but the whole service/provider
> configuration isn't one of
> them.  Here's a proposed new scheme:
>
> Instead of <provider> elements which sit inside the service
> element, we
> have
> a service type attribute which is a QName:
>
> <service name="MyService" type="java:RPC">
>
> Preregistered ones include java:RPC, java:Message, java:EJB, and
> axis:Handler.  New ones are pluggable.
>
> Now the issue becomes getting provider-specific options in
> the right place.
> The way the code works right now is that there is a single
> shared instance
> of each type of provider, which pulls options from the
> Service itself, so I
> propose we leave it that way -
>
> <service name="MyService" type="java:RPC">
>  <parameter name="className" value="glen.TestService"/>
>  <parameter name="methodName" value="*"/>
>  <parameter name="otherServiceSpecificOption" value="foo"/>
> </service>
>
> What do you think?
>
> --Glen
>
>



Mime
View raw message