axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Srinath Perera <hemap...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Date Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:46:54 GMT
Thilina we do not tired to remove the dependancy from the core module
.. core module is not actually "Axis2 core" .. it so heavy. SMTP is
not in the "Axis Core", but OMOutPut indeed in it. I want to do normal
http unoptimized messgeing with least number of jars.
Thanks
Srinath

On 6/29/05, Thilina Gunarathne <csethil@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the moment I just seperated the JavaMail dependent code parts of
> OMOutput to a Util class which contains bunch of stateless methodes. Now
> OMOutput will work without having JavaMail on the classpath. 
>   
> After doing it I found a huge depedency on JavaMail from SMTP transport
> (core module - when i tried to remove the dependency). Seems we cannot get
> rid of the Beast ;-) 
>   
> I'll look in to the final boolean flag & reflection. 
>   
> regards, 
> ~Thilina
>   
> On 6/28/05, Srinath Perera <hemapani@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > To Sum from all I like to purpose following
> > 
> > 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has 
> > dependancy in the compile time
> > 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> > classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
> > 
> > I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that 
> > pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
> > do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana < sanjiva@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > > Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> > > dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
> > >
> > > Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code .. 
> > > that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> > > doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> > > switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath: 
> > >
> > > class OmOutput {
> > >   private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
> > >
> > >   ..
> > > }
> > >
> > > now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&

> > > SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
> > >
> > > s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
> > >
> > > BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> > > belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
> > > 
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > > Hi All;
> > > >
> > > > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> > > >
> > > > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar 
> > > > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> > > >
> > > > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > > > mail jar for normal execution.
> > > >
> > > > Is that Accceptable? 
> > > >
> > > > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > > > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> > > >
> > > > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do 
> > > > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Srinath
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> "May the SourcE be with u"

Mime
View raw message