Hi All.
Wonder why Oleg removed the patch, without even committing it to a branch..
I did not even get a chance to look in to the new patch with deferred
building :(...
Current API and impl's were designed in a desperate manner to get MTOM SWA
working, when we found that java mail does not work
Oleg?
Thilina Gunarathne wrote:
Hi All.
Wonder why Oleg removed the patch, without even committing it to a
branch.. I did not even get a chance to look in to the new patch with
deferred building :(...
Current API and impl's were designed in a desperate manner to get MTOM
SWA working, when
without using MIME4J.
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 11:34 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Oleg,
I totally agreed with you if you scroll back a few emails. Yes, we
need to fix *that*. Any patch to do that will be
Dims
The package org.apache.axiom.mime defines the interfaces, and the
package org.apache.axiom.mime.impl which implements these using Mime4J.
I don't see why anyone else cannot implement these interfaces with any
other implementation..
Is your view on this still based on the following?
Asankha,
- Existing Axis2 test harness should work out of the box
- There should be no extra dependency jar (MIME4J) in the default
implementation.
Any patch that covers both will get my +1
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Asankha C. Perera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dims
The
You know what. Am tired of this game of control. Just do whatever you
want. I withdraw my -1.
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Asankha,
- Existing Axis2 test harness should work out of the box
- There should be no extra dependency jar
devs,
Please do not let the improvements to these projects go away. We all know
axis2 is a somewhat stable project, at the same time it is *not* perfect.
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
You know what. Am tired
Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
I have commit rights for Synapse, but I do not recall ever being granted
WS commit rights.
With the transport move you do now.
Thilina, while I agree with don't fix if it ain't broke, this is an
*improvement* .. not a fix for the sake of a fix. I think we should do
-1 to checking in the patch as-is.
thanks,
dims
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
I have commit rights for Synapse, but I do not recall ever being granted
WS commit rights.
With the transport move you do now.
Thilina,
For what reason? If you decide to veto then you should have the courtesy
to give a reason.
Sanjiva.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
-1 to checking in the patch as-is.
thanks,
dims
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
I have commit
Please see my previous emails.
-- dims
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what reason? If you decide to veto then you should have the courtesy to
give a reason.
Sanjiva.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
-1 to checking in the patch as-is.
thanks,
Dims,
I am sorry, I cannot find the reasoning that you are referring. Now that
Oleg did the differed passing part that Thilina suggested, I think it is in
a good shape.
If I am missing anything, can you please explain the reason of not
committing this patch?
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008
Ruwan,
If you see my -1...i said we should not check it in aas-is.
We should make changes such that MIME4J is an alternate
implementation. When we are finally convinced that it is better then
what we have (when running all the different MTOM size attachments),
then we should switch that to be
I guess what you are saying is that we need to check the performance of
Axiom with this patch right? If so why not we do this right now and commit
the patch?
Any volunteers to do this? ;-)
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruwan,
If you
Note that there will possibly be changes needed on axis2 side as well.
One another criteria is to make sure we don't break any tests in
existing Axis2 harness.
When we get to that point, we need to run end-to-end test with axis2
client - axis2 server with mutiple payload sizes.
Until then, i'd
Hi,
Thilina, while I agree with don't fix if it ain't broke, this is an
*improvement* .. not a fix for the sake of a fix. I think we should do it.
As even Oleg mentioned the MIME4J is around 15% slower than the current
impl.. IMHO the issue which this patch tries to address (in memory
Oleg,
I totally agreed with you if you scroll back a few emails. Yes, we
need to fix *that*. Any patch to do that will be *very* welcome.
thanks,
-- dims
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 10:08 -0600, Thilina Gunarathne wrote:
Hi Dims
I am not clear on this.. what you are suggesting is to just move the new
code to another maven module only? or to make it available as an option
to someone who wants to use it? If the new implementation has drawbacks
I understand, but if its better, why not just switch? or are we
Asankha et al
The patch was meant as a replacement for the existing implementation. It
is pointless to have two MIME frameworks in Axiom. Just forget about the
patch.
Oleg
-1! I think we should evaluate this patch just like any other. I'm not
clear what Dims is asking I'm afraid, but I
I am asking for the MIME4J implementation to be an option. Not the
default. Default should be what is in right now.
thanks,
dims
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Asankha et al
The patch was meant as a replacement for the existing implementation. It
is
Let's please keep it as a parallel optional implementation. just like
we have so many components with specific interfaces and multiple
implementations. If/when we finally see the promised results, all we
need to do is switch the default to the other implementation.
thanks,
dims
On Wed, Nov 19,
If we are going to take that approach we should have a clear set of
criteria and tests to decide what should be the default. Dims, can you
help improve the test coverage so we know what this patch is aiming
for?
Thanks
Paul
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul,
I believe changes will be needed in Axis2 trunk as well to support
this. Yes, when we get there, we can pitch in with tests that we can
use to figure out which imple is better under what conditions.
thanks,
dims
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If
Oleg,
Yes, we need to do exactly what you mention first.
The whole trouble is that Axiom currently does not allow for multiple
implementations of MIME processing as it does not have an abstract API
for that to start with.
-- dims
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski [EMAIL
Oleg,
was not referring to you per se. I meant the promise of super fast
performance if we switch to Mime4j...No, i certainly did not imply
that you are on the hook for that. we would need to look at it and
work on it as a team (all of us).
thanks,
dims
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Oleg
Let's do #2 and everyone will be happy...
-- dims
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 10:32 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Oleg,
Yes, we need to do exactly what you mention first.
The whole trouble is that Axiom currently does
Hi Asanka,Hope you've seen the following thread before posting this..
http://markmail.org/message/ayjxurjz2fow7hit
Quoting one of Oleg's mail,
Presently the patch I submitted (WSCOMMONS-387) does not provide support
for the deferred parsing, but it should be relatively trivial to add it.
I'm
Asankha,
Please check in ONLY if the new MIME4J dependent code is in another
maven module.
thanks,
dims
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Asankha C. Perera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
Last night I noticed that the patch contributed by Oleg for better MIME
parsing [1] has not yet been
28 matches
Mail list logo
