Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-axis-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-axis-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 699306F28 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 03:11:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 30793 invoked by uid 500); 6 Aug 2011 03:11:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-axis-java-dev-archive@axis.apache.org Received: (qmail 29889 invoked by uid 500); 6 Aug 2011 03:11:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@axis.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@axis.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@axis.apache.org Received: (qmail 29876 invoked by uid 99); 6 Aug 2011 03:11:26 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:11:26 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.173] (HELO mail-yx0-f173.google.com) (209.85.213.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:11:21 +0000 Received: by yxt3 with SMTP id 3so2384260yxt.32 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:11:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=M4Loc9aOpwYPm7Mvxqe9hApYzRJLvtsvJj8h3H70j7g=; b=cZ4dWEYhxzPsA0rnUuavr4sLrex+LtIaWdjpMar/QtOM1kyiEk5+vLqesV9EF0uSM/ cWYBRflp7FpaWmz6yaY+qXgkFI6skBQ2FZTcd1Y91Bqi6itAj+e1dp4fYNvE4adwtS0j CDuDnwxjDkW0mlQ/UqZEJAkz/GLCuCGQEbwfE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.161.42 with SMTP id v30mr4132032yhk.493.1312600260377; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.202.228 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:11:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E39EB21.3070800@gmail.com> <4E3A85BD.5080207@opensource.lk> <4E3BD953.9070504@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:41:00 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Non blocking with two channel is broken From: Amila Suriarachchi To: java-dev@axis.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303f6798407cc404a9cd90fe --20cf303f6798407cc404a9cd90fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe wrote: > 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 > semantics. > > 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 > conferences. > This is exactly what happens when you set that parameter and when the server receives an message with replyTo header. thanks, Amila. > > 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). > > Thanks, > Deepal > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Amila Suriarachchi > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Deepal jayasinghe > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> 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? > > > > thanks, > > Amila. > > > >> > >> Thanks., > >> Deepal > > > > > > > > -- > > Amila Suriarachchi > > WSO2 Inc. > > blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -- > http://blogs.deepal.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@axis.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@axis.apache.org > > -- Amila Suriarachchi WSO2 Inc. blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/ --20cf303f6798407cc404a9cd90fe Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Deepal J= ayasinghe <deepal= k@gmail.com> wrote:
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
semantics.

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
conferences.

This is exactly what happens when you= set that parameter and when the server receives an message with replyTo he= ader.

thanks,
Amila.
=A0

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).

Thanks,
Deepal

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
<amilasuriarachchi@gmail.= com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I looked and the code segment you mentioned, but that= is to process
>>> >> long
>>> >> running services. We had somewhat similar code to pro= cess request
>>> >> comes with
>>> >> replyTo header. If no one has removed then, we can fi= x the issue in
>>> >> AMR.
>>> >
>>> > This is for processing addressing headers with replyTo he= ader.
>>> I agree, but that is inside isAsync, so we need to have the pa= rameter
>>> to come to this logic.
>>
>> yes you need to add this parameter DO_ASYNC =3D "messageRecei= ver.
>> invokeOnSeparateThread"=A0 to services.xml.
>>
>> Do you want to make this by default. Then what about the backward<= br> >> 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 ba= ckward
>> compatibility is already broken.
>
> I am not sure about the functionality you talk about. Is it possible y= ou to
> find the commit which has removed that functionality you talk about? >
> thanks,
> Amila.
>
>>
>> Thanks.,
>> Deepal
>
>
>
> --
> Amila Suriarachchi
> WSO2 Inc.
> blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
>



--
http://blogs.deepal.o= rg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@axis.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@axis.apache.org




--
Amila Suriarachc= hi
WSO2 Inc.
blog: ht= tp://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
--20cf303f6798407cc404a9cd90fe--