Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4E699541.10509@sosnoski.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:25:37 +1200
From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@sosnoski.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 SUSE/3.1.12 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: a quesiton on CXF 2.5 WS-RM's protocol variation handling
References: 
 <CAF8t5Xt9ZRQnO43qugsOGO42f=ikBJ0Kg=5C-gM78c6FUqT4fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E4C37E2.7070704@sosnoski.com>
 <CAF8t5Xs3YQQpnPNQM5p5dh2XdEH31xZNZqkbEXnSg6HwZ2XVgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E55DDF3.3080309@sosnoski.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E55DDF3.3080309@sosnoski.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Aki,

I added the test code to verify proper server-side handling of different 
protocol variations (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1166927&view=rev) 
so if you want to try changing how RMEndpoint works, go ahead.

   - Dennis


On 08/25/2011 05:30 PM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 11:32 PM, Aki Yoshida wrote:
>> Hi Dennis,
>>
>> 2011/8/17 Dennis Sosnoski<dms@sosnoski.com>:
>>> Hi Aki,
>>>
>>> On 08/18/2011 09:25 AM, Aki Yoshida wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> RMManager now manages endpoints under each supported protocol
>>>> variation using Map<ProtocolVariation, Map<Endpoint, RMEndpoint>>.
>>>> Does this mean that an Endpoint can be used in several protocol variations?
>>> Yes. I decided to take this approach because I wanted the WS-RM
>>> serverside code to automatically adjust to whichever variation a client
>>> uses in the request, while allowing other clients to use other variations.
>> Okay. it makes sense. But could this multi-version support at the
>> sequence level so that you still have one RMEndpoint per Endpoint? One
>> RMEndpoint can respond to the create sequence message from various
>> clients using different versions and create each sequence bound to be
>> used for a specific version. So this will also work, no?
> I had originally looked at doing something along these lines. I think I
> ran into problems in handling outgoing messages, but from a look at
> RMOutInterceptor I'd think it'd be possible to work around any issues.
>
> I'll add some systests to assure that the code responds correctly to
> different protocol variations (which it does, at present). That way you
> can try this change and make sure nothing breaks.
>
>    - Dennis
>