axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ajith Ranabahu <ajith.ranab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Axis2] What should we have in AXIOM ?
Date Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:04:08 GMT
Hi,
Yes I am truly with option 1.
When looking back at the things I feel the same as Dasarath. We could
have left out certain changes all together. Currently I feel the
architecture is corrupted to a certain extent. If someone goes through
the class hierarchies there will be certain places where  its not
streamlined.
I feel what we did with implementing SOAP classes was not suitable.(
Not saying it is wrong. A SOAP object hierarchy is a must!. But the
way we have implemented the SOAP classes is "too tight" with OM). We
should have thought of a looser implementation. Builder checks for
SOAP compliancy and everything else that matters should have been 
more "stream lined".
Since we have a lot of work ahead that depends on OM I am ok with any
effort to refactor and correct anything with OM right now.



On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:38:58 -0800 (PST), Dasarath Weeratunge
<dasarathweeratunge@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you are in doubt about how much recent
> architectural changes may have affected (or killed) OM
> performance please look at the following test results:
> 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis/trunk/archive/java/scratch/dasarath/om/$1/
> 
> --Dasarath
> 
> --- Eran Chinthaka <chinthaka@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This will some relate to the thread "Doubt on Detail
> > Element in SOAPFault".
> >
> > AXIOM was not meant to check the compliance with
> > SOAP spec or anything else.
> > It will just hold the infoset. The reason behind me
> > putting a SAAJ like api
> > on top of OM was to provide developer convenience.
> > For example, rather than
> > saying element.getFirstElement(), developers love to
> > use
> > envelope.getHeader(). So, that was the intention of
> > providing that sort of
> > SOAP jargon in to Axiom. This was our initial idea.
> >
> > But later, some have put some checks in to the AXIOM
> > SOAP api. And the
> > earlier thread also was asking about this
> > validation.
> >
> > So I have a small question on this. What should we
> > have in AXIOM ??
> >
> > 1. Shall we "KISS" Axiom, and let it be just a info
> > set holder.
> >     - If this is the case, this will not affect the
> > performance, due to
> > validation and stuff. And if we make it like this
> > how we gonna provide
> > validation or do we need to provide validation. Can
> > we leave this up to the
> > user ?
> > 2. Shall we make AXIOM SOAP stuff do validation on
> > SOAP 1.1 spec as well.
> > - This will definitely affect the performance.
> >
> >
> > IMHO, I prefer option 1, which is basically my
> > initial idea as well.
> >
> > What do you all think about this ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eran Chinthaka
> >
> >
> >
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 


-- 
Ajith Ranabahu

Mime
View raw message