axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thilina Gunarathne <>
Subject Re: [Axis2] MTOM Works with Chunking & (partially) with Commons HTTP
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:13:15 GMT
I am +1 on using a default transport sender. I too have spent so many hours 
integrating MTOM in to our transports architecture. In that we had to use 
lot of switches at various places, making the things much more complicated , 
and also confused me in a big way.
 What i feel is having so many transport options without a clearly defined 
architecture will complicate the things & make it hard to plugin new 
improvements like Binary Serialisation........ It's a good idea to use 
CommonsHTTP a s defualt transport, which will keep the things simple and 
 Regarding the problem with MTOM , I'll test with bigger SOAP Envelopes and 
see wat'll happen. 
 Best regards,

 On 7/8/05, Davanum Srinivas <> wrote: 
> Thilina, Team,
> having our own hand-crafted HttpTransportSender is a big mistake. I
> spent countless hours fighting with Axis1.X custom HTTPSender, you
> have no idea. As a group, we cannot keep up with testing against all
> possible combinations. for example, we don't have support for "Expect"
> which is used extensively. Another example is if for some reason the
> server returns a 400 without a body, we fail miserably. We have to
> learn from our mistakes with 1.X and start using Commons HTTP from
> RIGHT now. We can do NTLM via proxies otherwise for example. It's just
> too much to do. In Axis, we are implementing a SOAP engine, not a HTTP
> sending thingy. If testing is our problem, we can use a jetty based
> simple axis server (see code in Axis 1.X). So let's *PLEASE* deprecate
> our custom http sender and switch completely to Commons HTTP transport
> sender.
> FYI, if we have problems with Commons HTTP, one of us (me!) has commit 
> privs.
> Thanks,
> dims
> On 7/8/05, Thilina Gunarathne <> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I tested our MTOM impl with chunking enabled. It worked well :). Binary
> > mime parts went as separate big chunks.
> >
> > After some fixes we were able to get MTOM working with Commons-Http
> > transport, but only for small attachments. When we tried to use with
> > moderate sized attachments it gives an exception when reading the Mime
> > parts(Stream not available). I think the problem arises with our 
> deferred
> > reading of Mime Parts. May be the Commons transport closes the stream. 
> If it
> > is the case this will even cause problems with deferred building of the 
> OM.
> > Anyway I'll look in to that matter more deeply and give the feedback.
> >
> > I'm at the Uni today and I can't commit the fixes to commons transport 
> now
> > itslef. So pls bare with me till i go home ;-).
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > ~Thilina
> >
> > --
> >
> > "May the SourcE be with u"
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -


"May the SourcE be with u"

View raw message