axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanj...@opensource.lk>
Subject Re: [Axis2] IRC chat log 2004-11-24
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:25:43 GMT
I was going to make an alternate suggestion too but forgot:

How about introducing different node types to the OM: That way
the mapping of those nodes to Infoset items can be whatever
is desired and hence we're not constrained by having to shoehorn
stuff under the current OM structures only.

Now, while that should be enough to implement SOAP encoding I'm
still against doing it ;-).

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@opensource.lk>
To: <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Axis2] IRC chat log 2004-11-24


> I generally like Glen's MTOM/databinding approach, but the trickery
> around attributes etc. concerns me. Glen, there's some hint to that
> in the chat - about how keeping a Java object as a "child" makes
> it inconsistent with the possibility that serializing that will
> result in attributes for example.
>
> In particular, combining this approach with your favorite of SOAP
> encoding serialization can be really nasty .. a single Java object
> can mess with the XML Infoset in weird ways. Now if you want to
> say Axis2 won't support SOAP encoding I'm most definitely +1! ;-)
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to those of you in North America! Enjoy that
> turkey ..
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Aleksander Slominski" <aslom@cs.indiana.edu>
> To: <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:27 PM
> Subject: [Axis2] IRC chat log 2004-11-24
>
>
> > we have talked more about MTOM/XOP and how to make OM more
> > data-binding friendly.
> >
> >
> > next chat:
> > December 01, 2004 10pm EST *on* WEDNESDAY (That's 9am Thu in SriLanka)
> > update agenda for next week in
> > http://wiki.apache.org/ws/ChatAgenda
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > alek
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/ws/ChatAgenda/20041124
> > [11/24/2004 8:52 AM] <Deepal> hi all
> > [11/24/2004 8:54 AM] <Srinath_> everybody is earliy :)
> > [11/24/2004 8:54 AM] <Harsha> Hi Deepal & the rest
> > [11/24/2004 8:55 AM] <Ajith> hello all
> > [11/24/2004 8:55 AM] <Deepal> BTW what is today agenda
> > [11/24/2004 8:58 AM] <Jaliya> Hi All
> > [11/24/2004 8:58 AM] -->| Chinthaka (~EC@220.247.247.140) has joined
> #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:00 AM] <alek_s> hi everybody
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Harsha> Ajith & Srinath, Thanks for the help. Hope
I
> am not hassling you guys.
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Chinthaka> hi all
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Ajith> hi alek
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <alek_s> i think agenda is very undefined
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Ajith> harsha : nope
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <alek_s> hi Chintaka
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Jaliya> Hi Alek
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <dasarath> Hi all
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Chinthaka> hi alek
> > [11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <alek_s> hi Jaliya
> > [11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <Chinthaka> yeah, agenda is not well defined
> > [11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <gdaniels> So let's pick something, then!
> > [11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <alek_s> i have just droppeed two items seems
> possible topics in
> > http://wiki.apache.org/ws/ChatAgenda
> > [11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <gdaniels> We could talk about turkey recipes :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Ajith> :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Jaliya> Shall we discuss what will be the client
> side API
> > [11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Srinath_> I love we can taste that as well !
> > [11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Chinthaka> recipes ? :D
> > [11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <dasarath> gdaniels likes turkey!!!
> > [11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Chinthaka> :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya: We could do that, but we might
> want to continue tying up the
> > loose threads we've got about engine/handlers and OM/MTOM...
> > [11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Ajith> yeah that is a good idea
> > [11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Jaliya> Ok, sure, We will finish it first
> > [11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Turkey's one of my favorites
:)
> > [11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Srinath_> glen herd you organizing a dinner :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:05 AM] <Ajith> we can clear up some of the probs we have
> > [11/24/2004 9:05 AM] <alek_s> Turkey gravy caan be good or very good ...
> > [11/24/2004 9:05 AM] <gdaniels> Srinath: Yup, wanna come? :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:06 AM] <gdaniels> OK, so engine or OM, folks?  I vote OM
> first.
> > [11/24/2004 9:06 AM] -->| chathura (~chathurah@203.94.95.193) has joined
> #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:07 AM] <chathura> Hi all
> > [11/24/2004 9:08 AM] <alek_s> i am OK either way
> > [11/24/2004 9:08 AM] <gdaniels> (Don't all vote at once now :))
> > [11/24/2004 9:10 AM] <--| chathura has left #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:10 AM] -->| chathura (~chathurah@203.94.95.193) has joined
> #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:10 AM] <gdaniels> okay then, how about OM....
> > [11/24/2004 9:11 AM] <gdaniels> It seemed people in general were heading
i
> n similar directions with
> > MTOM stuff, with a few differences
> > [11/24/2004 9:11 AM] <gdaniels> The reason I'd put the "content" object
in
> the OMElement was to allow
> > for not only MTOM, but also data binding, to occur.
> > [11/24/2004 9:12 AM] |<-- Deepal has left irc.freenode.net (Read error:
> 104 (Connection reset by peer))
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <gdaniels> If this was a separate binary-content
> node, that could work too, but in
> > the data-binding case it would be a little weird since you'd have one
node
> potentially affecting the
> > attribute set of its parent node.
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Ajith> oops a daisy we had a sudden "link
blackout"
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] -->| Deepal (~deepal@220.247.242.146) has joined
> #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Deepal> hi all
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Ah, I was wondering if something
> like that had occurred!
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Deepal> we had a problem on our adsl link
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <gdaniels> You all were unusually quiet. :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <dasarath> lets have a quick recap
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Ajith> Chinthaka and jaliya are still out i guess
> > [11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Deepal> can we pls send us wt did u discuss
> > [11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> I asked "om or engine", and I voted om,
> and Alek said he didn't care,
> > so I started talking about om
> > [11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <Ajith> at least to know where we are headed
> > [11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <Ajith> ik
> > [11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> <gdaniels> It seemed people in general
> were heading in similar
> > directions with MTOM stuff, with a few differences
> > [11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> <gdaniels> The reason I'd put the
> "content" object in the OMElement was
> > to allow for not only MTOM, but also data binding, to occur.
> > [11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> <gdaniels> If this was a separate
> binary-content node, that could work
> > too, but in the data-binding case it would be a little weird since you'd
> have one node potentially
> > affecting the attribute set of its parent node.
> > [11/24/2004 9:15 AM] <Ajith> so glen, Why wouldn't you put it as a
"binary
> node" or something
> > [11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> Well, first of all because it's not
> binary. :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> I want to support regular beans which
map
> to/from XML too
> > [11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <Deepal> then wt is it ?
> > [11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <Deepal> is it base64 ?
> > [11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> and I think the mechanism can be shared
> > [11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> no
> > [11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <Ajith> at the OM level?
> > [11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> The objects can live at the OM level,
yes
> > [11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> The serialization framework is separate
> though
> > [11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> I want to be able to say:
> > [11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement el = new OMElement(qname,
> object)
> > [11/24/2004 9:18 AM] <gdaniels> omWriter.write(el) (or whatever syntax
we
> use)
> > [11/24/2004 9:18 AM] <gdaniels> The reason I think this fits is because
> it's good for both MTOM
> > optimizations and data binding.
> > [11/24/2004 9:18 AM] <gdaniels> Both of which we know we want to support
> > [11/24/2004 9:19 AM] -->| EC_ (~EC@220.247.246.61) has joined
#apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <EC_> hi
> > [11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <gdaniels> did we lose Sri Lanka again?
> > [11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <chathura> and when we access this perticular
element
> area as pull stream we do what?
> > [11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <EC_> am I in ?
> > [11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <chathura> me too
> > [11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <dasarath> we are here
> > [11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <Ajith> EC : yeah you are :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <EC_> :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: The system would serialize the
> object and provide the pull events
> > [11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <chathura> do we push object to OM in tht case
right
> > [11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: right
> > [11/24/2004 9:20 AM] -->| Jaliya5712 (~Miranda@220.247.246.61) has
joined
> #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <EC_> can someone please paste the chat so far in
to
> my yahoo chat pleeeeeease,
> > I've lost a lot :(
> > [11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <chathura> and if the object doenst get pushed
before
> serialisation does the
> > serialiser get the object reference
> > [11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <Jaliya5712> I also want a copy
> > [11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <dasarath> what are the pull events for a binary
> node?
> > [11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: Which kind of "serialization"
do
> you mean?  Writing the
> > Object to OM, or writing the XML to a stream?
> > [11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <dasarath> is there anything like TEXT in the case
of
> the text event for binary
> > data as well?
> > [11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <chathura> om to xml
> > [11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: The same as the pull events
for
> either the base64 content or
> > "<xbinc:Include...>"
> > [11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <dasarath> I was getting at how to pass the binary
> data to the application through
> > pull events?
> > [11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: When we want to write out the
> XML text, the Object would need
> > to get serialized by the data binding system (via a
SerializationContext)
> > [11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <EC_> but glen : u have put binary data inside the
> parent element
> > [11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: I'm not sure what you mean
> exactly - can you give a
> > use-case/example?
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] |<-- Chinthaka has left irc.freenode.net (Read
error:
> 110 (Connection timed out))
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] |<-- Jaliya has left irc.freenode.net (Read error:
> 110 (Connection timed out))
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <EC_> hi
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <Ajith> glen :  that is what is not clear to me.
are
> we "burning" some kind of
> > serilaisation into OM?
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: No, just the framework for it.
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <dasarath> if its serialized as base64 the pull
> events are straight forward
> > meaning its another text event
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <alek_s> i have posted current chat to
> > http://wiki.apache.org/ws/ChatAgenda/20041124/ChatLog
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <chathura> basically asking is ther a method called
> omElement.getObject() for the
> > seriliser in the Om to XML case?????
> > [11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <EC_> thankx alek :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:25 AM] <Jaliya5712> Thanks alek
> > [11/24/2004 9:25 AM] <Ajith> glen :  then we are framed to that
particular
> serlising method!
> > [11/24/2004 9:25 AM] <Ajith> say OM to Text
> > [11/24/2004 9:26 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: The "serializing method" is just
> handing off responsibility to a
> > SerializationContext - that's pretty abstract.
> > [11/24/2004 9:26 AM] <alek_s> Glen: i do not like that you havce a
special
> treatment for DataHandler  -
> > user can not decide how DataHandler content should be serialized as it
is
> speciall in
> > BaseWriter.serialize()
> > [11/24/2004 9:27 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Yeah, I was just whipping off a
> quick sketch, but wanted to
> > distinguish MTOM stuff from data binding stuff somehow.  Other
> suggestions?
> > [11/24/2004 9:27 AM] <alek_s> why not have something like marker
interface
> that elements can implement
> > if they want their own serialization?
> > [11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: You mean specializing
OMElements?
> > [11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <Ajith> this is my view : we have the object model
> seperately and
> > serliasers/builders are things that interact with the OM by given
> interfaces
> > [11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <Ajith> so what ever the serialiser depends on the
> interface we give (such as pull)
> > [11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <alek_s> so if XopInclude includes this interface
it
> will ask seialize to
> > write/serializeBinary() itself
> > [11/24/2004 9:29 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: So how do I associate
object/binary
> content with the XML then?
> > [11/24/2004 9:29 AM] |<-- FR^2 has left irc.freenode.net (Read error: 60
> (Operation timed out))
> > [11/24/2004 9:29 AM] =-= EC_ is now known as Chinthaka
> > [11/24/2004 9:29 AM] <alek_s> class XopInclude extends OMElementImpl
> implements XmlSerializable
> > [11/24/2004 9:29 AM] <Ajith> we have a MTOM writer inside the seriliser
> that will generate the correct
> > serlisation depending on the node
> > [11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <Chinthaka> why XOPInclude extends Element ?
> > [11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <Ajith> with the assumption that we have a
binaryNode
> in OM
> > [11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Where does the object content
live
> though?
> > [11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <Chinthaka> isn't it just extend OMText ?
> > [11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <alek_s> XopInclude *is* XML Infoset Element
> Infotmation Item (eii)
> > [11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <Ajith> why, we have a node that specifically
carries
> binaryContent at OM level
> > [11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: So also class ObjElement extends
> OMElement implements
> > XmlSerializable?
> > [11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <alek_s> example: <xop:Include
> xmlns:xop='http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include'
> > href='cid:http://example.org/my.hsh'/>
> > [11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: What about data binding?
> > [11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <alek_s> Glen: yes - that is what i was thinking
> > [11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <Ajith> hmmmm
> > [11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: The <xop:Include> never actually
> appears in the infoset though
> > [11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <Chinthaka> alek : what I meant was content of
> XOPInclude
> > [11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <gdaniels> The infoset has the actual binary in it,
> and <xop:Include> is purely a
> > serialization optimization
> > [11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <alek_s> XopInclude is in XOP Infoset
> > [11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <Ajith> I was thinking of data binding by a given
> pull interface
> > [11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <alek_s> and XOP iNfoset is just transformation of
> XML Infoset
> > [11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <dasarath> XopInclude is in XOP Infoset?
> > [11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <Ajith> But we can bind a binary content to a given
> java object
> > [11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <Ajith> Is it?
> > [11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <alek_s> i think OM represent XML Infoset in
> different stages of transformation?
> > [11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: See, I want to support building
an
> XML tree that has Objects
> > hanging off it at certain points, but not others.  I also want to
support
> deserializing a particular
> > place in the XML to Object and caching the result.
> > [11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <alek_s> including case when we have Java objects
> that will be later transfromed
> > to XML Infoset
> > [11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <Ajith> hmmmm
> > [11/24/2004 9:34 AM] <Ajith> Now i see your point
> > [11/24/2004 9:34 AM] <alek_s> Glen: i agree completely!
> > [11/24/2004 9:34 AM] -->| _chris_
> (~chris@pcp04631447pcs.gambrl01.md.comcast.net) has joined #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: +1 to different stages of
> transformation, but I don't think the
> > <xop:Include> should ever appear in the OM model itself...?
> > [11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <Ajith> but wont this "stored object" corrupt our
> nice architecture
> > [11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: I don't know. :)  I hope not.
> > [11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <gdaniels> The only problem I can see with it is if
> you've got different data
> > binding frameworks working on the same piece of XML (and therefore using
> different mappings)
> > [11/24/2004 9:36 AM] <gdaniels> I think that's going to be pretty rare
> > [11/24/2004 9:36 AM] <Ajith> glen : this is what we had in mind
> > [11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <Ajith> we expose a pull event stream from Om so
that
> by converting it into sax we
> > can use any data binding tool
> > [11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> I'd like to try it anyway, and see what
it
> looks/feels like.  If we can
> > get it right, I imagine the API being *really* useful/easy for Java/XML
> programming.
> > [11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <Ajith> such as XMLbeans that use a sax interface
> > [11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Now you're talking about
> deserializing
> > [11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> That sounds fine.
> > [11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> I definitely want to support what you
just
> said.
> > [11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <Ajith> hmmm
> > [11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <gdaniels> But also I'd like to have a
> getObjectValue() (or whatever) API which
> > uses a configured data binding framework to do that work for you IF one
> has been configured
> > [11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <Chinthaka> OM -> StAX --> SAX --> databinding
> > [11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <alek_s> glen: XopInclude for me is very similair
to
> hanging Java Objects in XML
> > tree - something that is not in XML Infoset but can be tranformed to
> infoset (for XopInclude --> BASE64)
> > [11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <Chinthaka> databinding --> SAX --> OM
> > [11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <gdaniels> The nice thing about that API is that
you
> can use it BOTH for getting
> > MTOM content and for getting Java databinding content
> > [11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <Ajith> Glen :  what I am little bit worried is
> burning in an "object" inside OM
> > [11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Yes, except that data binding
can
> also affect attributes,
> > whereas binary content cannot.
> > [11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <alek_s> getObjectValue(ctx <list of
data-bindings>)
> > [11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: I understand the concern.
> > [11/24/2004 9:39 AM] -->| FR^2
(~FRQuadrat@pD956E3D3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
> has joined #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: But essentially we're doing that
> with XmlBinary/XopInclude too,
> > aren't we?
> > [11/24/2004 9:40 AM] <alek_s> glen: during data-binding it should be
> possible to create any XML Infoset ...
> > [11/24/2004 9:40 AM] <Ajith> yeah : what I had in mind is we store it in
a
> generic "binary node"
> > [11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> ok
> > [11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> here's a use case
> > [11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> let me show you what I want to do for
> serializing
> > [11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement container = new
> OMElement("root");
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement child1 = new
OMElement("child");
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> child1.setObjectContent(book1);
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement child2 = new
OMElement("child");
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> child2.setObjectContent(book2);
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> container.addChild(child1);
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> container.addChild(child2);
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> omWriter.write(container);
> > [11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> <end>
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> Is that reasonable to want?
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <dasarath> that's OK but
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <alek_s> all good except for last line
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <Ajith> hmmmm , that seems quite a "developer
> friendly" piece of code :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <dasarath> we stayed away from that so far right?
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <alek_s> i think writer should be configured with
> data bindings
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Darned right!
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Yes, I was assuming that had
> already happened
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> also i would not store "object content" in
> OMElement as a special content
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> but just as any other child
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <gdaniels> OMWriter omWriter = new
> OMWriter(outstream, dataBindingContext)
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: but it is special, alas.
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> child1.addChild(content)
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: in particular, it can serialize
> attributes
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <Ajith> glen :  how is this bool object serialised
?
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> why is it special? content will be
> transformed to XML Infoset during writing
> > [11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <Ajith> I mean where is it configured
> > [11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: So making it a child would break
> the model of "child"
> > [11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <alek_s> so it should be treated as potential XML
> Infoset
> > [11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <alek_s> assumed XML Infoset until found guilty
> (exception)
> > [11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: which bool object?
> > [11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <alek_s> brb
> > [11/24/2004 9:47 AM] <gdaniels> Here's the thing.  I want Axis (and OM
in
> particular) to be as
> > "developer friendly" as possible.  Otherwise what's the point?
> > [11/24/2004 9:47 AM] <gdaniels> We know we want to support MTOM anyway.
> > [11/24/2004 9:47 AM] <gdaniels> So it seems to me like there's a lot of
> potential overlap between
> > reading/writing binary objects (Image, byte[], etc) and reading/writing
> data-bound objects
> > [11/24/2004 9:48 AM] <gdaniels> If we can make a single
> structure/framework/API work for both, that
> > seems like it would be really cool.  If not, no problem, but I want to
> explore it fully.
> > [11/24/2004 9:49 AM] <alek_s> back
> > [11/24/2004 9:50 AM] <alek_s> glen: i agree with it 110%
> > [11/24/2004 9:50 AM] <gdaniels> I wonder if we lost Sri Lanka again...or
> if they're just meditating. :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <Chinthaka> meditating ???
> > [11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <Jaliya5712> No conected
> > [11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <chathura> hmmm
> > [11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <dasarath> not at all
> > [11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <alek_s> i jave just posted update dlog to wiki
> > [11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <alek_s> just in case
> > [11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <alek_s>
> http://wiki.apache.org/ws/ChatAgenda/20041124/ChatLog
> > [11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <gdaniels> So Alek and I seem to be on the same
page
> on this general idea... others?
> > [11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <Jaliya5712> So we will support binary object
> representation on OM althouhg it is
> > not in the infoset?
> > [11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya5712: ??
> > [11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <Jaliya5712> It is me, Jaliya
> > [11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <Srinath_> hi sorry for trouble if somebody know
can
> someone let me know how to
> > revert a commit (I seem to have mess up ws-site and need to revert))
> > [11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <dasarath> are we not over engineering here?
> > [11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <Ajith> glen : sorry had to take a call , I meant
the
> "book" object
> > [11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya: I know it's you - I didn't
> understand what you were asking :)
> > [11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: I don't think so yet, no.
> > [11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <Jaliya5712> Are we going to inclued binary node to
> OM?
> > [11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: This seems pretty easy to
build
> to me so far.
> > [11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <dasarath> I may be wrong but this is what I
> understood, say if u want to send a
> > Boolean object
> > [11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <dasarath> as the return type
> > [11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya: That's what we're discussing...
> > [11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <dasarath> u directly attach it to the OM
> > [11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> i very much like implicity of this
> > [11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <dasarath> but that can be done without this
feature
> as well
> > [11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> it makes working with XML Infoset simple
and
> allows multiple tranformations
> > [11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> when final "pure" XML Infoset is built in
> stages
> > [11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Yes, you could always use an
> external data binding system
> > [11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> (s)implicity
> > [11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <Jaliya5712> Alek:Yes
> > [11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> my concern is
> > [11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> why not leave the data binding stuff to
> the external
> > [11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> data binding systems
> > [11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Because we need to do MTOM,
> right?
> > [11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> and let OM expose a minimal interface
for
> them to ride on top of OM
> > [11/24/2004 9:57 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: If we're doing MTOM and
actually
> optimizing (i.e. NOT writing
> > the whole object to base64 in all cases), we need someplace to put
> java.awt.Images or DataHandlers.
> > [11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <Jaliya5712> If we have custom nodes in OM then can
> we let some other code to do
> > the databinng?
> > [11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: So Alek and I are suggesting
> that since we need that anyway,
> > and the semantics are very similar to that of data binding, why not use
a
> single mechanism?
> > [11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <Jaliya5712> So it shoule also be included, I think
> > [11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <Jaliya5712> in OM
> > [11/24/2004 9:59 AM] <dasarath> can't we get around the MTOM case in a
> much simpler if we do not
> > consider this
> > [11/24/2004 9:59 AM] <gdaniels> No one is suggesting that you should not
> be able to plug-and-play your
> > actual data binding frameworks like Castor, XmlBeans, etc....
> > [11/24/2004 10:00 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: I'm not sure.  How would you
> MTOM-encode a java.awt.Image?
> > [11/24/2004 10:00 AM] <alek_s> i have been around topic of serialization
> and deserialization for years
> > [11/24/2004 10:00 AM] <dasarath> for OM it will be a binary data stream
> > [11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <alek_s> building it on top of SAX and DOM was
> painful and sometimes very complicated
> > [11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: What does it look like for
the
> programmer, I mean?
> > [11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <alek_s> we have chnace now to "custom fit" OM to
> what we need
> > [11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <Ajith> glen : bTW if we binarize an AWT image how
> can .net recreate it?
> > [11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <gdaniels> alek: +1 (but you knew that :))
> > [11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: You serialize it using MTOM as a
> MIME "image/jpg"
> > [11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <alek_s> i would have wrapper object (such as
> XopInclude) that would be
> > serialized with mime type image/png
> > [11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <Ajith> glen : aah
> > [11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <gdaniels> There's nothing JavaCentric there,
Ajith
> > [11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <gdaniels> png, jpg, whatever :)
> > [11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <alek_s> i think pretty much everybyd will suport
> MTOM including foremost Microsoft
> > [11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <Ajith> i get it , so you want to transfer items
> like image objects into specific
> > media types in transport
> > [11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <dasarath> when deserializing are we creating
> different binary objects like awt.Image
> > [11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <gdaniels> yes yes
> > [11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <gdaniels> in particular, images, byte arrays, and
> XML documents can be optimized
> > that way
> > [11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <dasarath> in OM
> > [11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <Ajith> ok I get it
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <dasarath> say OMElement.getObjectValue->returns
an
> awt.Image
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Well they go somewhere. :)
> We're deciding how and where.
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <Ajith> but the prob is having this non Om object
> hanging around with the Om!
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: that's exactly what I want to
> see, yes.
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: We could easily have options
which
> control whether to cache it
> > or not.
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <alek_s> that is what i have in mind too
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <dasarath> but don't u think that's too much to
ask
> from OM
> > [11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> We want OM to be "tunable" for given
use
> cases
> > [11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: No, absolutely not.
> > [11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <gdaniels> Remember - you're not asking OM to do
ALL
> the work, OM also works with
> > a data binding framework.
> > [11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <dasarath> but
> > [11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <dasarath> this implies that
> > [11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <gdaniels> OM also works with a XOP/MTOM
"framework"
> which is just the
> > DataHandler/activation framework in Java
> > [11/24/2004 10:06 AM] -->| Essington (~Essington@essington.user) has
> joined #apache-axis
> > [11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <Ajith> glen :  you have a very attractive point
> there but I am not sure whether
> > that is ok!
> > [11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <dasarath> data binding stuff is working before
the
> method getObjectValue returns
> > [11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <dasarath> meaning data-binding is not on top of
OM
> but IN it
> > [11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <alek_s> glen: i think MTOM should be more generic
> than "just DataHandler/activation
> > [11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Sure
> > [11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: It's accessible THROUGH OM,
but
> not INSIDE OM.
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> Guys, I have to run unfortunately...
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <dasarath> but now OM has to be aware of this data
> binding
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> got another meeting coming up
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <dasarath> k
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> I'll read rest of log, and pls continue
> conversation on email
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <dasarath> we'll go for a prototype as see
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <alek_s> i will be commiting to SVN my MTOM "toy"
> coe
> > [11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> bye for now all!
> > [11/24/2004 10:08 AM] <dasarath> bye glen
> > [11/24/2004 10:08 AM] |<-- gdaniels has left irc.freenode.net ()
> > [11/24/2004 10:08 AM] <alek_s> code should be in general similiar to
Glen
> but more support for XML
> > Infoset transformations
> > [11/24/2004 10:09 AM] <alek_s> want to call today chat finished?
> > [11/24/2004 10:09 AM] <dasarath> yes why not
> > [11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <dasarath> its 9.00
> > [11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <alek_s> no it is 10.10 :)
> > [11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <dasarath> ;)
> > [11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <chathura> :d
> >
> >
> >
>
>


Mime
View raw message