Amila, You might not remember the two transport functionality since
this was done a long time ago, and in fact those days you were
contributing the ADB and code generation. Actually, the long running
services idea was initially developed based on the two transport
The correct way to handle two transport or any request with replyTo
(not anonymous), is to send the ACK on the request transport and send
the reply through the reply to address. So, we had this feature and I
have used and demoed this feature a number of times in various
I sent this email to mailing list to see whether someone has removed
the source code as part of some discussion, because I am sure I have
missed some long discussion after 2008. Now, it is sure that this
feature was not removed intentionally. So I will fix it correctly.
With my academic work I hardly find time to go through the mailing
list and try to respond as much as I can. So going through commit
messages is not a practical solution for me (though I spent two hours
doing that). In fact I am not actively looking at Axis2 code base
since 2008, so it is hard for me to navigate all those changes.
Thanks all of you for the actively participation, I will implement
this feature correctly (of course when I find a free time).
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Deepal jayasinghe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe <email@example.com>
>>> >> I looked and the code segment you mentioned, but that is to process
>>> >> long
>>> >> running services. We had somewhat similar code to process request
>>> >> comes with
>>> >> replyTo header. If no one has removed then, we can fix the issue in
>>> >> AMR.
>>> > This is for processing addressing headers with replyTo header.
>>> I agree, but that is inside isAsync, so we need to have the parameter
>>> to come to this logic.
>> yes you need to add this parameter DO_ASYNC = "messageReceiver.
>> invokeOnSeparateThread" to services.xml.
>> Do you want to make this by default. Then what about the backward
>> compatibility :)
>> Long running services and two transports non-blocking invocations are two
>> different things. So, we do not need to make DO_ASYN the default. However, I
>> am talking about the removal of an existing functionalities, so backward
>> compatibility is already broken.
> I am not sure about the functionality you talk about. Is it possible you to
> find the commit which has removed that functionality you talk about?
> Amila Suriarachchi
> WSO2 Inc.
> blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com