beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daryoush Mehrtash" <>
Subject RE: Design proposal for enhanced JAX-RPC handler functionality for the service control
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:01:41 GMT
My suggestion is (unless there is a good reason why we should not) to
reuse the javax.jws.HandlerChain and javax.jws.soap.SOAPMessageHandlers
annotation.    It would be nice not to invent new annotations if there
are already defined.

We may also be able to reuse the handler code of the WSM in the service


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chad Schoettger []
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 3:01 PM
> To: Beehive Developers
> Subject: Design proposal for enhanced JAX-RPC handler functionality
> the service control
> As discussed in a previous email thread on this list (Service control
> threading cleanup) I would like to make a design proposal for adding
> enhanced JAX-RPC handler functionality to the service control.
> One of the primary goals of this change would be to allow service
> users to define their own JAX-RPC handler chains for a service
> Currently the service control only supports the HeaderHandler (see
> tree) which can add SOAP headers to outgoing messages and SOAP
> headers from incoming messages. There are two service control API's
> support this: Element[] getInputHeaders() and void
> setOutputHeaders(Element[])
> I propose that these two API's be removed as well as the HeaderHandler
> class.
> The API's would be replaced with a new annotation in the
> interface:
> public @interface HandlerConfigParams {
> String name();
> String value();
> }
> public @interface MessageHandler {
> Class handlerClass();
> HandlerConfigParams[] configParams() default {};
> String[] headers() default {};
> }
> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
> @Target({ElementType.TYPE})
> public @interface MessageHandlers {
> MessageHandler[] value();
> }
> If this optional annotation is set service control would add the
> to
> the HandlerRegistry at runtime. I'm thinking this would be a
> annotation for the service control - would it also be useful to be
able to
> define this on a per method basis?
> - Chad

View raw message