axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Please revert this - and a proposal
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:33:44 GMT
Doug,

Can you please move all your changes to the proposals? (including wsa)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis/trunk/proposals/dug/

Once you are ready with all tests working, tck passing, etc. then
write up a detailed proposal with changes, put it for a VOTE and go on
from there?

Let's get back HEAD in the shape it was before (modulo the failures :)

thanks,
dims



On 2/13/06, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dug,
>
> - 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?
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 2/13/06, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com> 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 <sanjiva@opensource.lk> 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 : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>


--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

Mime
View raw message