xml-soap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Noel Gadreau <jngadr...@activcard.com>
Subject RE: SOAPEngine / EnvelopeProcessor - Am I way off ?
Date Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:22:16 GMT
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Johns [mailto:rjohns@vignette.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:19 AM
To: soap-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: SOAPEngine / EnvelopeProcessor - Am I way off ?


Sorry, didn't mean to ignore it. I plan to look at it as soon as I can, but 
right now I'm swamped. I like the concept (based on your explanations) of 
refactoring the code so that it is more reusable and that the architecture
will 
become more flexible. I must admit that I have been looking at everything 
with an "http eye" although I do understand the need to generalize for 
other transports. 
[Jean-Noel Gadreau] I am also more interested by the HTTP side for now, but
I want to leave the door opened for other transports (for instance to avoid
the SMTP2HTTPBridge for those who don't want to use HTTP at all).  

I want to retain the idea of a servlet for http rpc and that we have the 
ability to register properly scoped service provider classses, so I doubt 
I will scream too much as long as this architectural option is available. 
Within that architecure, though, there are some improvements that 
would be nice, like the ability to register multiple providers in one 
deployment descriptor. 
[Jean-Noel Gadreau] For the moment, my changes are at a higher level. I
worked on changing what you do with the Envelope, so that you can do other
stuff than just RPC (like routing/forwarding of envelopes, access control,
...). I think that I will first concentrate at this level to work out the
issues, before looking at the deployment descriptor stuff. Just a quick
question though... why do you wnat to have multiple providers in one
deployment descriptor ? to have several different implementations ?

Jean-Noel

PS: Does anybody know how to tell Outlook to stop sending HTML instead of
plain text because I changed all I could and it still sends HTML (which is
kinda unfriendly on a mailing list, I apologize for it) ?

=============
Jean-Noel GADREAU
Software Engineer, ActivCard Inc.( http://www.activcard.com
<http://www.activcard.com/>  )
E-mail: jngadreau@activcard.com
Tel (main): 510-574-0100
Tel (direct): 510-574-1736


thanks 


Jean-Noel Gadreau wrote: 


  

Hi all. 


I am sending this quick e-mail because I did not get any feedback on the
patch/enhancement that I sent to the list a couple days ago on an
implementation of what I called "SOAPEngine" and "EnvelopeProcessors". As I
did not see any discussion on the list, I am wondering if my approach is
completely off the scope of Apache-SOAP, or if I am not considering the
problem correctly, if nobody cares or if you don't have time to look at it. 


I need to keep working on this project for my company, but we also want to
contribute to Apache-SOAP if possible. So should I just keep working on it
as it is and post updates ? Do you see changes that I would need to roll in
now ? 


If you could let me know what's your views on this, I would really
appreciate. 


Thanks a lot 


Jean-Noel 


============= 
Jean-Noel GADREAU 
Software Engineer, ActivCard Inc.( http://www.activcard.com
<http://www.activcard.com>  ) 
E-mail: jngadreau@activcard.com 
Tel (main): 510-574-0100 
Tel (direct): 510-574-1736


Mime
View raw message