Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 94151 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2005 14:41:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2005 14:41:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 58895 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2005 14:41:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 58749 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2005 14:41:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 58732 invoked by uid 99); 11 Nov 2005 14:41:14 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:41:14 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [209.68.5.17] (HELO relay03.pair.com) (209.68.5.17) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:41:04 -0800 Received: (qmail 74153 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2005 14:40:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 11 Nov 2005 14:40:49 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 220.247.229.171 Message-ID: <4374AD5B.2070508@opensource.lk> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:40:27 +0600 From: Eran Chinthaka Reply-To: chinthaka@opensource.lk User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [Axis2] Where did Call.to go to? References: <43748213.7040207@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <43748213.7040207@apache.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi Steve, Let me explain the reason behind this change and I was about to explain this to the community. Steve Loughran wrote: > > The protected EndpointReference to; field in Call has disappeared, > breaking my subclassing. > > 1. what has it been replaced by. > > 2. remember, everything you make protected is implicitly part of the > API. Make things private if you dont want people to use them. If you look at the message context, there also you have setTo, etc., So I wanted to put the same pattern in to the Call too. Anyway, earlier it was not possible to set message information headers other than To using MEPClient or derivations of MEPClient. But security and RM people came up with following use cases for them to access replyTo epr, etc., 1. Security needs to send some data and get them back in the response. So they wanted to put some ref parameters in to the request message. 2. RM people wanted to add the proxy support for the response message, so that the response message comes to the proxy. So what I did was provide the access to those MIheaders via putting an instance of MIHeaders in the mepclient. And providing getter and setter methods. So when user invokes the service, the set epr information will be set to the message context. Did this change affect you ? I hope not. Can't you get the to epr via getTo() and do whatever you were doing earlier. And I for one always prefers to access inherited attributes via there getters and setters, without directly accessing them ;-) . -- Chinthaka > > -steve > >