geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Srinath Perera <hemap...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Runtime and deployment time web services architecture -- please comment
Date Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:21:27 GMT
My picture for the EJB Ws are that the WS stack do the XML->java
conversion of the invocation and then hand java representatons over to
the EJB Continaer to do the invocation and return the result to WS
stack.  [I know in thoery the "Invocation" object should be added to
the intercepter stack]. Then WS-stack will do the Java ->XML
conversion and send it back.

I hope what I am saying fits here, I too belive that the
SOAP/HTTP(XML)-> java conversion should not be put inside  EJB class
as it is the WS-Stack's job
Thanks
Srinath


On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:22:01 -0800, David Blevins <dblevins@gluecode.com> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 7, 2005, at 4:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> > From another reply David wrote:
> >
> >> I should state more clearly what I mean by this.  CMP/BMP EntityBeans
> >> or Stateful SessionBeans will not have a Web Service Stack, neither
> >> will Stateless SessionBeans that only have Local or Remote
> >> interfaces.
> >>
> >> In fact, in the case where people are just chatting from Servlets to
> >> EJB's through Local interfaces, we don't need any protocol stacks at
> >> all, e.g. no CORBA, no EJBd, no HTTP/SOAP.  This is partly why it
> >> weirds me out to add protocol specific things into the
> >> GenericEJBContainer class.
> >>
> >
> > now that you put it that way I agree.  I might change my mind at any
> > time... but this seems like a very strong argument.
> >
> 
> If you think of anything neat to add/remove, I'm all ears.
> 
> -David
> 
>

Mime
View raw message