On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> From: Simon Laws >> > ... > >> Leading on from this we seem to need to hold header info in the Tuscany >> message. I've added the following to the message interface to support some >> policy experiments I've been doing but am open to suggestions... >> >> Map<String, Object> getHeader(); >> >> > Here's a suggestion: > > List<Object> getHeaders(); > > - there's multiple headers (the trailing 's' makes that clear) > - a List supports multiple instances of a named header > - and is closer to a JAXB representation of XML <header>* > > Hope this helps. > -- > Jean-Sebastien > Apologies Sebastien, I didn't come back to you on this suggestion. I had in the back of my mind that having multiple headers with the same name could cause problems in terms of knowing what to do with them as they are extracted from the native message. If we're just pushing message headers into the Tuscany message then duplicates aren't a problem I guess. If we're trying to map them to operation parameters then it could be more problematic as it's difficult to tell which named header maps to which parameter. I may be talking my way into agreeing that multiple headers with the same name in the Tuscany specific message is OK though with it being a binding problem if it can't then translate that into something sensible on the native wire. Simon
