Chathura Herath wrote:

Hi Jaliya, Deepal, all

Its exactly my point, the MessgeReceiver is per MEP not per operation as the heading of this thread implies(nor its per service). MEP is a real pain and there is an unprecedented need for properly handling it.

You are right about there is a need of a MessageReciever per given MEP and the 
fact that given service can have operations with different MEP can be resolved 
making sure we select the right receiver in the Dispatch phase. Anyway we are 
doing it now but apparently we have only the IN_OUT MEP Receiver and infact we 
are in the process of writing a general framework for MEPs. I.e. Proper 
figuring out of MEP aware receives and MEP aware MEPContexts.
So we are converging I think....

Btw any thought of my use case stated in the earlier mail. Restating.. If both 
the ping operation and the echo operation requires to use the same transport 
(e.g. HTTP would be a likely) due to some external constraint like RM, we ll 
have to get the engine to reuse same transport for two or more different MEP.

Is this a valid use case??

Comments??

Thanks,
Chathura

________________________________________
From: Jaliya Ekanayake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Axis2] Deploying MessageReceivers per Operation


Hi Chathura, Deepal and All,

I would like to pay your attention to the following class.

public class MyService {
public void ping(String pingStr){
//Ping implementation
}
public String echo(String echoStr){
//Echo String implementatino
return echoStr;
}
}


Now if we need to deploy this as a web service containing two operations (one 
with IN-ONLY MEP and the other with IN-OUT MEP) we are in trouble if we just 
allow the user to mention one message receiver per service.

Further, I am referring to the following lines( in the Axis 1.2 JavaProvider)

--------------------------------

if (operation != null &&   operation.getMep() == OperationType.ONE_WAY) {
               msgContext.setResponseMessage(null);
           } else {
               Message        resMsg  = msgContext.getResponseMessage();

-------------------------------

Now in our MessageReceiver we donât need to check the operation type, since we 
have some special MEP aware MessageReceivers. Only problem is that we may have many 
operations in one service with different MEPs

Comments?

Thanks,

Jaliya


________________________________________
From: Chathura Herath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Axis2] Deploying MessageReceivers per Operation


Hi Jaliya, Deepal, all

I think we havenât looked at the problem in the correct angle. MEP and 
Operation have a one to many relation ship so it will not be right to say we let 
each operation have its own message receiver, neither it is correct to say we should 
have a message receivers per service because the MEP is defined per operation.

Many Operation â useâ One MEP

The problem that jaliya has pointed out is very valid and believe we need to give proper attention. But we have missed out one salient point here. The original MEP was an IN_ONLY MEP but since the operation requires secure conversation the security module need to send out a message and get a message back.
The point in that in this case the security module has created a new MEP(OUT_IN if you consider this EPR to be a server or itâs the client side of the IN_OUT MEP ) which is orthogonal to the original MEP IN_ONLY. Further more now the endpoint has two parallel MEPâs running 1) Original IN_ONLY MEP :- This will have a receiver â a InOnlyReceiver
2) OUT_IN MEP created by the security module :- This will have its own receiver. (Like a normal client)


Now I believe there are no misunderstanding of having MessageReceivers because 
above two message receivers will be provided and this operation and the 
security module can use them. And any other service who has IN_ONLY MEP can use 
the above message receiver. Am I right?

Complications come when you want to use the same transport to get everything done. That we have to figure out a way to get the engine to reuse our old same transport.

Comments?

Cheers
Chathura


________________________________________
From: Deepal Jayasinghe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Axis2] Deploying MessageReceivers per Operation


Hi Jaliya;

I think we can handle operation basic receivers inside Message receiver , that 
is because when some one implement a service he has to write a MessageReciver 
for his service  , so inside the messagereciver he can write all the logic he 
needs to handle operation basis reciever , that is inside 
messagereciver.recive() he can implement those logic.

as an example

MyReciver extends MessageReciver {

public void recieve(MessageContext context){
MyOperationReciever myop = new MyOperationReciever();
myop.recieve(context);
} }



so if we do that in this way I think we do not need to define per operation basis receivers.


Comments ....

Deepal

Hi All,

According the current implementation of Axis2, when we deploy a service, we can 
specify one MessageReceiver (InOnlyMessageReceiver, InOutMessageReceiver etc..) 
per service. According to my understanding we should let the user to register 
one MessageReceiver per operation basis. Possible example would be as follows.

We have a web service with IN-ONLY operation. However we need to let the service to implement the RequestSecurityToken operation according to the WS-SecCon. This operation is an IN-OUT operation. In this situation we have to register two message receivers to these two operations. In addition, the MEP is bind to an operation and the MessageReceiver is the one who is driving the MEP. So I think we have let each operation to have its own message receiver.

thoughts ??

Thanks,

Jaliya







Hi Chathura,

IMHO, there may not be a use case similar to what you have mentioned. There may be a case for one MEP to use the same transport or different transports, but not between MEPs

Thanks,

Jaliya

Reply via email to