axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sanjiva Weerawarana <>
Subject Re: [Axis2]UnsupportedOperationException on InOut MEP????
Date Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:20:25 GMT
Hi Glen,

> Wow, this is a serious -1 for me.  We had this discussion, IIRC, at 
> least twice (I think even at both F2Fs!), and I thought we'd resolved to 
> keep things in terms of the WSDL model and have a "role" switch  which 

This was done months ago .. way before the ApacheCon F2F even! 

> indicates whether the current processor is the client or the server 
> (i.e. the message labels stay the same but the sending/receiving roles 
> switch).

Actually it works very nicely .. and makes the client stuff work exactly
as a message receiver: the order of messages is crystal clear and
processing is clearer. (IMO, of course.) 

> If you go switching the MEP, then you've switched the message names 
> ("in" becomes "out", etc), and therefore any policies, extensions, or 
> other specs or code that have been written in terms of the message 
> labels (or the MEP name) ALSO need to be switched. 

No they don't need to be switched: the policies are attached to
something. If they're attached to the WSDL, there's NO confusion
whatsoever. The "switch" occurs when building the AxisService from the
WSDL; hence the need for the switch at that time.

If they're attached to the flows, there's NO confusion whatsoever as one
speaks in terms of "in-flow" and "out-flow" and in means in and out
means out in all cases. Its actually more natural because there's no
idea of "in-flow" meaning actually the out message flow on the client

>  This is a nightmare 
> - what if some serialized data in a message refers to something by 
> message label?

? I don't get the scenario; you want to allow a response coming back
from a service to the client to have some serialized data referring to
the WSDL message label of the outgoing message?? That doesn't seem
sensible to me. Maybe I'm missing something; please clarify.

> Please reconsider - doing it this way (changing the actual model instead 
> of simply changing what role you play in USING the model) is very 
> confusing and I believe may lead to serious problems down the road.

This was done because the other model was causing serious problems ..
this has cleared up a lot of internals because there's never an issue of
in meaning out or out meaning in any more. 

I know its a big jump if this is the first time you are hitting into it.
But it does clear a lot of stuff up and makes it much easier to do the
guts including policy processing.

p.s.: I'm going to be in a plane for the next day (and then in meetings
for 3 days followed by 2 days of planes) so responses will be slow. 

View raw message