axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eran Chinthaka" <chinth...@opensource.lk>
Subject RE: [Axis2] Some review notes from me
Date Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:43:10 GMT
Hi Venkat,

C my comments below.

> 
> Hello folks :-)
> 
> First off, apologies for being a long-time lurker without much active
> participation in Axis2 due to some other priorities. Indeed, you folks
> made tremondous progress in seeding and shaping out the next
> generation SOAP processor.
> 
> Now, that one more round of discussions are round the corner, I just
> gone through the code and made a list of notes or observations, which
> could be  purely a result of my limited knowledge of the code and
> please consider these as my humble attemt at ramping up with the
> things. If you guys feel any of these notes are useful, i'm willing to
> submit any needed changes.
> 
> Client-side
> ---------------
> 1. ExecutionChain.invoke() might need to skip the current phase while
> calling phase.revoke(), because revoking the handlers in the current
> phase is already taken care of, inside the Phase.invoke().
> 
> 2. Similarily, the handler.invoke() may have the code to revert the
> actions in a catch block, thus making the handler.revoke() unnecessary
> for the *current* handler.
> 
> 3. o.a.axis.engine.Dispatch: This is seemingly being used as handler
> for receiving the message instead of what its name suggests. The
> AxisEngine.receive method creates a dispatcher phase with the name
> "DispatchPhase". I think this should be named as "ReceivingPhase". the
>  Phase class also has two phases named as "DispatchPhase" and
> "SendPhase", which tend to mean the same but actually being used as
> symmetrically opposite phases.
> 
> 4. o.a.axis.engine.receive() does not add service-specific phases to
> the chain, unlike what  executeOutFlow() does.
> 
> 5. o.a.axis.engine.receive() doesn't appear to the opposite of
> executeOutFlow() both in terms of the name and in its input
> parameters. May be we can have consistent naming and signature,
> becuase they seem to do the same stuff, but in opposite order.
> 
> 6. The instance variable registry in AxisEngine classs seems unused,
> though we can't construct the engine object without passing registry.
> Mostly we are using the registry contained in MsgCtx for message
> processing.
> 
> 7. Looks like our SOAP* classes are not implementations for
> javax.xml.soap.* but something specific to Axis OM. May be its better
> to move closer to SSAZ as early as possible.

I can't understand what you meant by specific to OM. SOAP specific OM
classes will implement only the required stuff. And I will try my level best
to make all the SOAP specific OM classes, SOAP 1.2 compliant soon.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Regards,
Chinthaka

> 
> 8. We need to have TCK tesing also planned out and in-built into the
> milestone releases right from the beginning. I can take this up, with
> my experience with the TCK testing for 1.2.
> 
> Thats all for now :) And i said at the beginning, all this is strictly
> my two cents, and could be way off :)
> 
> - venkat




Mime
View raw message