axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Sosnoski <>
Subject Re: [axis2] Pinging capability to services deployed in Axs2
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:26:56 GMT
In my experience the individual operations of a service generally use 
the same backend functions. This generally means that either all 
operations are working properly, or nothing of any significance is 
working properly. It's possible to do things differently, grouping a 
bunch of unrelated functionality into a single service, but I have a 
hard time understanding the benefit of doing this.

If there *are* different groups of operations within the service, I'd 
think it would make more sense to allow the user to define names for the 
groups and pass that group name. So for instance, if someone combined 
air, car, and hotel reservations in a single service while using 
separate backend systems to process each type of reservation, they could 
support ping("air"), ping("car"), and ping("hotel") for clients that 
only needed one particular function.

So I just don't see the point in taking this down to the operation 
level. It seems to me that doing so adds a lot of complexity to the 
handling of the ping without much added value.

  - Dennis

Thilina Gunarathne wrote:
> Hi all,
>> I'm especially unclear about how this would work at the individual
>> operation level, which was also part of what was discussed. My memory is
>> that there's (normally?) just one message receiver per MEP. So if the
>> intent is to offer a per-operation ping, I suppose you could pass the
>> operation name to the ping method. That seems somewhat ugly to me in
>> that the user code now has to be able to identify operations. Perhaps
>> it's better to instead have the ping only at the service level, where it
>> can be more clearly defined.
> We can introduce "ping" in two levels..  The service level ping would
> ping message receivers belonging to each and every operation listed
> under that service. The operation level ping would ping just the given
> operation.. We assume a certain "ping" request as a service level ping
> whenever the operation name is missing in the body..  In this case we
> might need to think bit more about the response message structure..
> <complexType name="operationStatus">
>   <complexContent>
>       <restriction base="anyType">
>         <xs:sequence>
>                <xs:element name="status" type="xs:boolean"/>
>                <xs:any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" 
> namespace="##any"
> processContents="lax"/>
>            </xs:sequence>
>        <attribute name="operationName" type="string" />
>    </restriction>
>  </complexContent>
> </complexType>
> The return type can be an array of operationStatus type..
> Just my two cents :)..
> Thanks,
> Thilina
>> This does mean that the ping() method would need to pass some form of
>> structured response back to the message receiver, rather than just a
>> boolean. Perhaps we could define a PingResponse class along these lines
>> to make it easy:
>> public class PingResponse {
>>     private boolean up;
>>     public PingResponse(boolean up) {
>>         this.up = up;
>>     }
>>     public isUp() {
>>         return up;
>>     }
>>     public List getAddedElements() {
>>         // user classes can override to return a list of OMElement
>>         return Collections.EMPTY_LIST;
>>     }
>> }
>> I don't think the ping request really needs to be extensible, but
>> passing a String parameter is easy. That would allow the operation name
>> to be passed as previously proposed by Sameera, if someone does want an
>> operation-specific ping. So perhaps the ping logic calls each message
>> receiver ping() implementation in turn until it gets a non-null
>> PingResponse result?
>>   - Dennis
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message