axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Jordahl <tjord...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: [Axis2] Make RPCUtil more flexible
Date Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:42:31 GMT
Eventually Axsi2 will be almost as good as Axis is.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Tom Jordahl
Axis 1 implementer

-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 7:42 AM
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Axis2] Make RPCUtil more flexible

Guess it's time to port the pluggable serializer/deserializer mechanism from Axis1 :)

-- dims

On 06/19/2009 06:33 AM, Andreas Veithen wrote:
> So, to summarize: You are happy with most of the JavaBeans<->  XML
> mapping rules, but you want to customize some of them (e.g.
> java.util.Date/java.util.Calendar<->  xsd:date/xsd:dateTime mapping or
> the way arrays are mapped), without modifying Axis2 code (or creating
> a fork of it). Is that correct?
>
> I think that is a valid use case that we should support, but we need
> to do that in a proper way without degrading the architecture.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:29, Pétur Runólfsson<petur@betware.com>  wrote:
>> Hi Sanjiva,
>>
>>> I guess your point is that RPCMessageReceiver does everything you want except
do the JavaBeans<->  XML mapping the way you want?
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> In that case, can you not subclass the message receiver and redirect some code?
>> That's what I would like to do, but it's currently not possible because all the interesting
methods are static and can't be overridden. That's why the original patch changed some of
those methods to be instance methods instead.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pétur Runólfsson
>> Betware
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [sanjiva@opensource.lk]
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 02:48
>> To: axis-dev
>> Subject: Re: [Axis2] Make RPCUtil more flexible
>>
>> Hi ... I'm a bit confused. Do you want to modify the behavior of ADB or the behavior
of JavaBeans<->  XML mapping? The follow-up email proposal suggests the latter.
>>
>> If its the latter, the design approach in Axis2 was that you'd have your own message
receiver that did whatever you want. I guess your point is that RPCMessageReceiver does everything
you want except do the JavaBeans<->  XML mapping the way you want? In that case, can
you not subclass the message receiver and redirect some code?
>>
>> Sanjiva.
>>
>> 2009/6/18 Pétur Runólfsson<petur@betware.com<mailto:petur@betware.com>>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> I agree that just taking RPCUtil and making the methods non-static doesn't result
in a great design. On the other hand it's a quick way to get some more flexibility without
changing much code.
>>
>> Anyway, in order to get started on an API, here are the things called by RPCMessageReceiver
I think are most important to be customizable:
>>
>> * Conversion from OMElement to Object (approximately BeanUtil.processObject(OMElement
omElement, Class classType, MultirefHelper helper, boolean isArrayType, ObjectSupplier objectSupplier),
or maybe BeanUtil.deserialize(OMElement response, Object [] javaTypes, ObjectSupplier objectSupplier,
String[] parameterNames), depending on how arrays should be treated)
>> * Conversion from Object to OMElement (most of RPCUtil.processResponse(SOAPFactory
fac, Object resObject, OMElement bodyContent, OMNamespace ns, SOAPEnvelope envelope, Method
method, boolean qualified, TypeTable typeTable), also BeanUtil.getPullParser(Object beanObject,
QName beanName, TypeTable typeTable, boolean qualified, boolean processingDocLitBare), the
interface here might be more convenient to extend if the XMLStreamReader was dropped and objects
converted directly to OMElement instead)
>>
>> This might result in an interface like:
>>
>> public interface BeanConverter {
>>   Object deserialize(OMElement omElement, Class targetType);
>>   OMElement serialize(Object object, QName name);
>> }
>>
>> OMElement could maybe be replaced with XMLStreamReader, but I think the interface
is much nicer if the same type is used in both directions. Note that ObjectSupplier, MultirefHelper,
SOAPEnvelope, TypeTable, SOAPFactory, qualified and processingDocLitBare don't need to be
parameters on the (de)serialize methods in this interface, since implementations will be stateful.
There should probably be setters for them in the interface.
>>
>> There are other things that could be interesting extension points (for example handling
errors from the service method, or looking up the service method), but I think the above two
would be a good start.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pétur Runólfsson
>> Betware
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Andreas Veithen [andreas.veithen@gmail.com<mailto:andreas.veithen@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 14:14
>> To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org<mailto:axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Axis2] Make RPCUtil more flexible
>>
>> Pétur,
>>
>> I didn't look in detail at your suggestion, but I have some doubts
>> from an architecture point of view. I don't think that taking an
>> existing utility class and promote that to an API or extension point
>> will improve the quality of the Axis2 architecture. If there are
>> aspects that need to be configurable or extensible, than we should
>> define a proper API for that.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 13:19, Pétur Runólfsson<petur@betware.com<mailto:petur@betware.com>>
 wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> For various reasons, I have on several occasions wanted to modify the behavior
of ADB. Unfortunately, in many cases the only way to do this is to change the ADB source code
and recompile, because most of the relevant bits of ADB is composed of static methods that
can't be overridden.
>>>
>>> Here is a patch to convert some of the static methods to instance methods. The
patch removes the static qualifier from all methods in RPCUtil. A protected RPCUtil member
is added to the classes that use RPCUtil (RPCMessageReceiver and JavaTransportSender). This
makes it possible to customize RPCUtil by extending those classes and setting the RPCUtil
member to a subclass of RPCUtil.
>>>
>>> Because this patch removes static qualifiers from public methods, the change
is neither source nor binary compatible. If this is a problem, it is possible instead to move
the code to a new class (maybe named RPCInvoker?), and have RPCMessageReceiver and JavaTransportSender
use that class. RPCUtil would have a static instance of new new class and forward all calls
to that. If keeping compatibility is preferred, I can make a new patch that does this.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Pétur Runólfsson
>>> Betware
>> The content of this e-mail, together with any of its attachments, is for the exclusive
and confidential use of the named addressee(s) and it may contain legally privileged and confidential
information and/or copyrighted material. Any other distribution, use or reproduction without
the sender's prior consent is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have by coincidence,
mistake or without specific authorization received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by e-mail immediately, uphold strict confidentiality and neither read, copy, transfer,
disseminate, disclose nor otherwise make use of its content in any way and delete the material
from your computer.
>>
>> The content of the e-mail and its attachments is the liability of the individual
sender, if it does not relate to the affairs of Betware.
>> Betware does not assume any civil or criminal liability should the e-mail or it´s
attachments be virus infected.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
>> Founder, Director&  Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
>> Founder, Chairman&  CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
>> Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
>> Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
>>
>> Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>>
>> The content of this e-mail, together with any of its attachments, is for the exclusive
and confidential use of the named addressee(s) and it may contain legally privileged and confidential
information and/or copyrighted material. Any other distribution, use or reproduction without
the sender's prior consent is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have by coincidence,
mistake or without specific authorization received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by e-mail immediately, uphold strict confidentiality and neither read, copy, transfer,
disseminate, disclose nor otherwise make use of its content in any way and delete the material
from your computer.
>>
>> The content of the e-mail and its attachments is the liability of the individual
sender, if it does not relate to the affairs of Betware.
>> Betware does not assume any civil or criminal liability should the e-mail or it´s
attachments be virus infected.
>>

Mime
View raw message