cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Glynn, Eoghan" <eoghan.gl...@iona.com>
Subject RE: Programatically installing interceptors per (Bus|Service|Endpoint)
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:09:14 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com] 
> Sent: 22 March 2007 21:04
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cxf-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Programatically installing interceptors per 
> (Bus|Service|Endpoint)
> 
> On 3/22/07, Glynn, Eoghan <eoghan.glynn@iona.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
> > > Sent: 21 March 2007 19:12
> > > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: cxf-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Programatically installing interceptors per
> > > (Bus|Service|Endpoint)
> > >
> > > Also, I recently added an AbstractWSFeature class which 
> I'd like to 
> > > support the loading of a plugin for a particular 
> scenario. The idea 
> > > being that you can have a feature class - like a 
> WSSecurityFeature - 
> > > which configures your endpoint for something - like 
> WS-Security. And 
> > > it can just become part of the JAX-WS endpoint configuration.  I 
> > > posted some examples of how this might work in the 
> client/EPR thread 
> > > if you're interested. I'll be answering some of the 
> questions that 
> > > arose on that shortly...
> >
> >
> > This WSFeature stuff is interesting.
> >
> > One quick question, what would be the overlap between this and the 
> > WS-Policy framework?
> >
> > I'm thinking specifically of the following policy use-case:
> > - policy assertion implies requirement on runtime
> > - corresponding AssertionBuilder indicates it has capability to 
> > support this requirement
> > - corresponding PolicyInterceptorProvider contributes the necessary 
> > interceptors to realize the capability in the dispatch chain
> > - dispatch-time policy verification ensures that this capability is 
> > present as expected
> >
> 
> Thats an interesting idea as well. I guess I don't fully grok 
> all the policy stuff. But I'll check into and see if we can 
> just use that instead. No need to replicate that.
> 
> Do you think there would there be an issue if we don't have a 
> policy schema for particular features?


Do you mean there not being a *standardized* policy schema for a
particular feature?

I guess in that case we could invent our own, or?

Nothing against the WS*Feature idea in principle ... but probably worth
thinking about a bit in terms of ensuring we don't end up with two
different means (WS*Feature and WS-Policy) to a similar end (asserting a
requirement on the runtime).

Cheers,
Eoghan



Mime
View raw message