cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fred Dushin <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Unification of coloc and object bindings
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:42:33 GMT

I think I just meant that in order for a server-side (>=logical)  
interceptor to make use of any information on the Message or  
Exchange, then the representation of that data -- the data structures  
used, that is -- has to be the same on the client side as it is on  
the server side.  I'm pretty sure I wasn't referring to JAXB, but now  
I'm worried if there is a case in which different data bindings were  
relevant.  For example, could the CXF AuthorizationPolicy XML type  
end up bound different Java type?  It's a degenerate case, for sure,  
and one not likely to be seen for a long while, so I'm less concerned  
about that.

I think my only point was that not all information in a request  
context (Message/Exchange) is symmetric on the client and server  
side, and post-logical interceptors may require information in the  
context that's not on the client context.  So I'm just noodling about  
how such an interceptor would make sense out of the limited  
information it has.

One other concrete issue has occurred to me, in thinking about this  
CXF AuthorizationPolicy.  If you look at the documentation  
annotations for the AuthorizationPolicy XML type, there is an / 
implication/ that the structure is intended for use with HTTP  
(witness the term "BASIC").  Perhaps the founding fathers had loftier  
intentions for this type, such that it could be used for any type of  
username/password authentication (JMS?  CSIv2?), but let's assume the  
narrow case of HTTP/BasicAuth.

Now imagine a co-located case, in which a client populates a request  
context with one of these AuthorizationPolicy instances.

On Apr 12, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Glynn, Eoghan wrote:

>> Also, one other difference between the 2 approaches is that
>> the coloc case seems to require that any information
>> represented on a message on the outbound side has to be
>> represented in exactly the same way on the inbound side.
> Do you mean that the data binding is the same on both sides (e.g. JAXB
> with identical customizations)?

View raw message