+1 for Option #1
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:07:52 +0600, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all; > see my comments below. > > > > Hi all, > > > > This will some relate to the thread "Doubt on Detail Element in > > SOAPFault". > > > > AXIOM was not meant to check the compliance with SOAP spec or anything > > else. > > It will just hold the infoset. The reason behind me putting a SAAJ like > > api > > on top of OM was to provide developer convenience. For example, rather > > than > > saying element.getFirstElement(), developers love to use > > envelope.getHeader(). So, that was the intention of providing that sort of > > SOAP jargon in to Axiom. This was our initial idea. > > > > But later, some have put some checks in to the AXIOM SOAP api. And the > > earlier thread also was asking about this validation. > > > > So I have a small question on this. What should we have in AXIOM ?? > > > > 1. Shall we "KISS" Axiom, and let it be just a info set holder. > > - If this is the case, this will not affect the performance, due to > > validation and stuff. And if we make it like this how we gonna provide > > validation or do we need to provide validation. Can we leave this up to > > the > > user ? > > As I know OM was developed for Axis2 (at the summit last September) , so I > like it to be having good performence in both memory and speed , if we are > going to make it to be full inforset (supporting all specs) model then I > think we have done a mistake. So I am + + 1 for option 1 > > > 2. Shall we make AXIOM SOAP stuff do validation on SOAP 1.1 spec as well. > > - This will definitely affect the performance. > > > > > > > IMHO, I prefer option 1, which is basically my initial idea as well. > > > > What do you all think about this ? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Eran Chinthaka > > > > > > > > -- Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
