cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Client and Conduit changes
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:41:15 GMT
On 3/28/07, Glynn, Eoghan <eoghan.glynn@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
> > Sent: 28 March 2007 15:49
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Client and Conduit changes
> >
> > We hashed out, but didn't come to any great resolution. I
> > proposed a solution, and as I understand (hopefully I haven't
> > misinterpreted), you agree that my solution is completely
> > feasible, it just isn't your preference.
>
>
> Well my recollection of that discussion was mostly you repeatedly
> questioning the need for partial responses, and me repeatedly explaining
> why we needed them.


Yeah, so I was ignorant of how partial responses worked and their
motiviations. And I thank you for patiently explaining it. I hope we can
move beyond that now.

Please remind me of your proposal if you want to reactivate that
> discussion (on a separate thread).
>
> But if you're referring to your proposal that the RM layer sets the 202
> response code directly, then my objection wasn't on the basis of my
> personal preferences. Instead IIRC I argued on the basis of keeping RM
> transport-neutral.


I think you're mischaracterizing what I was proposing. But I can clean it up
and propose it under a separate thread at some point.

- Dan
-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message