I too agree - it adds confusion. If I remember correct, these were required to implement WS-Addressing. (Or am I mistaken?) If yes, I propose that we remove these empty methods till we decide to support WS-Addressing - and if we need to have records - can keep it in Jira.
Thanks, Samisa... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:58:26 +0000, John Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, that's kinda my point - if we *know* it's a requirement why is no one > complaining that they don't work and it took test to find this out ? This > suggests we should lose them until we actually get some one who really needs > them rather than keeping old API's commented or not. It justs adds confusion > to what is a BIG code base :-) > > > > John Hawkins > > > > > Roshan Weerasuriya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 17/01/2005 09:47 > Please respond to > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > ToApache AXIS C Developers List <[email protected]> > cc > SubjectRe: SoapSerialiser > > > > > > > > > hi John, > > Since we know that this is a requiement by Handler writers, instead of > removing them shall we just comment and keep them, so that when we > implement we can uncomment and continue. > > Roshan > > On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 15:38, John Hawkins wrote: > > Hi Roshan, > > > > You seem to suggest that you have actual people who need these > > methods? If so, then they should be implemented (asap?). If not then I > > suggest we scrap them to avoid confusion and not have a middle ground > > . If people need the function back at a later date then we can use CVS > > to get back the old code. > > > > > > John Hawkins > > > > > > > > Roshan Weerasuriya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/01/2005 > > 09:31:43: > > > > > hi, > > > > > > These are methods which are required by Hanlder writher who need > > access > > > to the body. We did some work on this and they have more different > > > requirements on accessing/setting the SOAP Body. Implementing all of > > > those methods which are pointed here could be usefull for Handler > > > writers. > > > > > > If you are going to remove these what abt having a JIRA issue on > > this so > > > that we will not forget it. > > > > > > Of can we have API comments such as "This method is not supported > > > currently, but will be implemented shortly or something like that" > > and > > > let these methods be in the API. > > > > > > Any how these are different requirements which are needed by Handler > > > writers. > > > > > > Roshan > > > > > > On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:14, John Hawkins wrote: > > > > Anyone got an opinion on removal of these methods - or how come > > > > they're in this state? > > > > > > > > John Hawkins > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Perry2/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > 14/01/2005 16:10 > > > > Please respond to > > > > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > > > > To > > > > "Apache AXIS C > > > > Developers List" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > cc > > > > "Apache AXIS C > > > > Developers List" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Subject > > > > Re: > > > > SoapSerialiser > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same seems to be true for IHandlerSoapDeSerializer > > > > > > > > virtual xsd__hexBinary AXISCALL getBodyAsHexBinary()=0; > > > > virtual xsd__base64Binary AXISCALL getBodyAsBase64Binary()=0; > > > > virtual AxisChar* AXISCALL getBodyAsChar()=0; > > > > > > > > These are only partially implemented or not implemented and should > > be > > > > removed from the public API until the implementation is complete. > > > > > > > > The getBodyAsChar() method also has a malloc() in it which > > shouldn't > > > > be > > > > used. For memory allocation news should be used. This method seems > > to > > > > be > > > > 'in progress' and not finished. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Andrew Perry > > > > IBM Web Services Client for C/C++ > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Mail Point 127 > > > > IBM UK Laboratories. Hursley Park, Winchester, Hants. SO21 2JN > > > > Tel. Internal 249828 External + 44 (0)1962 819828 > > > > Fax. + 44(0)1962 818080 > > > > > > > > John Hawkins/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14/01/2005 15:29:31: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for removing. > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has requested this function and there is no impl. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John Hawkins > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Perry2/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > 14/01/2005 15:19 > > > > > > > > > > Please respond to > > > > > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > cc > > > > > > > > > > Subject > > > > > > > > > > SoapSerialiser > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been writing handler tests to test the public APIs > > available to > > > > > handlers and have come across several of the public APIs which > > have > > > > empty > > > > > implementations in the code and //TODO comments. > > > > > > > > > > Is there a plan to actually implement these methods? > > > > > > > > > > I feel that these methods should not be in the public API and > > should > > > > be > > > > > removed until there is an implementation behind them. > > > > > > > > > > Examples of these are : > > > > > > > > > > IHandlerSoapSerialiser->getBodyAsString > > > > > IHandlerSoapSerialiser->setBodyAsHexBinary > > > > > IHandlerSoapSerialiser->setBodyAsBase64Binary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Perry > > > > > IBM Web Services Client for C/C++ > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Mail Point 127 > > > > > IBM UK Laboratories. Hursley Park, Winchester, Hants. SO21 2JN > > > > > Tel. Internal 249828 External + 44 (0)1962 819828 > > > > > Fax. + 44(0)1962 818080 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
