cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Polar Humenn <>
Subject Re: http: URLs and setepURL
Date Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:51:18 GMT
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Polar Humenn <> wrote:
>> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > No, think of an activation namespace as a transport id.  As in  "
>> >"
>> >
>> So, what does a "transport id" mean?  In particular what does the above
>> URL mean as a transport id?
>> In http2 the HTTPTransportFactory seems to get registered under the
>> following "activation namespaces" or "transport id"s.
>> So if a CondiutInitator is registered under all of these "transport id"
>> what's the common factor that unites them? Or what are their
>> differentiators? What do they signify?
> They can be "foobar" for all I care. They're just some way to link 
> together
> an EndpointInfo and a Conduit/Destination.
> WSDL uses various different namespaces to refer to HTTP, at least two of
> them are WSDL ids. The last two should should not be there. And I think
> there is the possibility that the remaining two could be removed.

C'mon guys, they *have* to *mean* something, and there must be something 
common about them!

So, if you say its a "way" to link together EndpointInfo and a Conduit, 
then it has no dependence on any meaning external to CXF? Somehow I 
don't believe that.

What would happen if a conduit initiator wasn't registered under some of 
these names?
Lets say for example, the one ending in "/configuration".
What would break?

Would a client not be able to talk to specified endpoint in a particular 
WSDL file? Would a client not be able to send a message to a logical 
host it constructed programmatically?


View raw message