axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Venkat Reddy <>
Subject [Axis2] Some review notes from me
Date Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:39:27 GMT
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.

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

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.

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

View raw message