axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <>
Subject Re: Please revert this - and a proposal
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:45:40 GMT

- Have u set your self up with the TCK stuff? Can u run the automatic
tck test harness and make sure nothing is broken?
- Are there existing issues in JIRA which will be fixed with your changes?


On 2/13/06, Doug Davis <> wrote:
> Sanjiva,
>   Let me first say that I am in no way against the general idea of people
> from to axis2 - from what
> I've seen and heard of the new architecture it sounds like a very positive
> thing.  My desire to
> integrate these changes into axis1 is based on a couple of things:  first,
> in previous interop events
> I've been to I saw some of the difficulty the axis1 guys had in getting
> things to work and I believe
> that part of that was because of the limitations they were trying to live
> under (ie. just handlers).
> During that time, for my own purposes, I did have a version of Axis1 that
> could handle those
> cases and IMO did it w/o a major change to Axis1 so after struggling thru
> the pains of IBM legal
> (you know what that's like! :-)   I finally got permission to contribute
> them - and am working on
> more.  So, since I had these changes ready to go I thought that it made
> sense to help out the
> existing axis1 community by contributing them.  The migration from Axis1 to
> Axis2 will take
> some time and not everyone will be able to switch over right away (or any
> time soon) so I saw
> no harm (but a lot of benefit) to giving people the option of using some of
> my changes to support
> things like better WSA and RM support.
>   As to your comment about me taking Axis1 where it hasn't gone before - I'm
> no so sure that's
> true.  Axis has changed over time - I remember way back when (old timer talk
> :-)   Axis was
> supposed to be a generic messaging engine and supporting SOAP was just one
> of the options.
> Since then Axis has changed and its pretty clear its a web service
> engine/processor.  Changes that
> are made that help it support the new WS specs is still taking it down its
> current path, IMO.  Adding
> the notion of new plug-points, aside from handlers, isn't that radical
> either - being able to plug-in
> different loggers or xml parsers isn't done thru handlers either.
>   In terms of future plans, I (and probably the rest of the axis1 community)
> will probably move to
> axis2 at some point - but in the meantime I'd like to share some of the
> benefits of these changes
> with others.  As I've said before, my primary rule with these changes is to
> not break existing code,
> so if people don't like these new extensions or plug-ins they are not
> required to use them.  But I feel
> pretty confident in their ability to work properly since I've been using
> them for several years now.
> And I do not intent to just "dump and run" - I fully intent to support them
> and fix bugs as they pop-up.
> I plan on continuing to use this myself for quite some time.  Hopefully,
> this help.
> thanks
> -Doug
> Sanjiva Weerawarana <> wrote on 02/13/2006 10:36:26 AM:
>  > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 10:16 -0500, Doug Davis wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Done - apologies for not explaining this a bit more in the svn
>  > > commit... the changes that Dims
>  > > is referring to are the couple of lines in the AxisEngines that make
>  > > calls out to RM code
>  > > and Security code.  These do not assume any particulat implementation
>  > > choice - they
>  > > are totally pluggable.  In principle I agree that doing these things
>  > > as handlers would be
>  > > the way to go, however, in working with these specs I've found that
>  > > when you start to
>  > > look at their requirements it shows that the handlers can't really
>  > > meet their needs.
>  >
>  > Doug, these are some of the reasons we started on Axis2. There are many
>  > design points in Axis2 to enable this stuff to be done. So far the Axis1
>  > community has been content with saying "we're moving to axis2" when it
>  > came to this kind of stuff and overall evolution in general.
>  >
>  > The last time I asked you about it you said "yes some of the old timers
>  > have agreed privately."
>  >
>  > I am no longer willing to accept that and would like a discussion on the
>  > list on how much of "a few lines of code" changes to make to Axis1 to
>  > take it where it hasn't gone before (;-)). From comments from both Glen
>  > and Dims it not clear they agreed these are changes we want to make and
>  > they are as "old timers" as its gets with Axis1.
>  >
>  > Can you indicate what your plans are any why we're doing this? We need
>  > to have a discussion of the direction and have a vote on it amongst the
>  > community before making any more changes; you're burning into Axis1
>  > stuff that's by design meant to go in handlers .. and that's not a
>  > simple change *even if its a few lines of code*.
>  >
>  > Sanjiva.
>  >

Davanum Srinivas :

View raw message