Just to be clear .. I'm *NOT* saying I don't want to see any of these extensions being done .. its only a conversation about what is in the core or not. That's it.
I'm sorry for the -1 .. that was not appropriate! I meant to argue *against* Tom & Glen's position .. not to -1 the discussion. Sorry guys. Sanjiva. On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 22:38 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 12:12 -0400, Tom Jordahl wrote: > > From: Glen Daniels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > Correct. Whatever "simple" db framework we include must be able to: > > > > > > 1) Do rpc/lit AND rpc/enc > > > > > > 2) Handle WSDL 1.1 "wrapped" style method calls > > > > > > 3) Handle SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 data encoding (arrays, mrefs) > > > > > > 4) Handle WSDL 2.0 RPC style (once we're handling WSDL 2.0 :)) > > > > +1 > > > > This is the kind of list I like to see. :-) > > -1 .. :(. All of that stuff is about doing yet-another-RPC-SOAP-thing. > > I don't agree that we need to *build into the core of Axis2* every > possible thing that Axis1 did. If we go with that all the way, then we > have no room to create anything new .. all we're doing is reimplementing > what we had before. > > I know there are many people in the world who *still* want to use Web > services to SOAP enable RPC stuff. If that's what you want to do then > Axis1 does one hell of a job of doing that; please keep using it .. the > code works fine and many smart people have put in a lot of effort on it. > > IMO Axis2 is about future Web service stuff where its much more than > about RPC style stuff. That's why to me it is *fundamental* that data > binding is not in the core and that data binding has nothing to do with > the message exchange pattern. I've converted over time ..I used to be an > RPC style bigot too but now I'm totally convinced that the value of Web > services will show thru much better when we start adopting XML all the > way through. Data binding is contrary to that view; hence my desire to > keep it out of the core. > > While I agree with David Sosnoski that many people do and will continue > to start with a piece of code and "Webservicify" it, I disagree that > that's what Axis2 should be focused on. We put a lot of effort to create > the MEP & context framework which allows one to deal with any kind of > MEP. And the reality is that starting with Java code is a flat out lousy > way to implement anything except in-out type MEPs - that's all the Java > programming model gives you in its guts: a method call. If you want to > do other stuff (including a simple in-only or out-only) then Java code > is not a great way to start .. you need to start at a "higher" level and > then write the code .. or take Java code and annotate it to death. > > It really comes down to why we are doing Axis2. For some its to try to > gain performance improvement out of going to a StAX model etc.. While I > agree that is a VERY important requirement, I would put the priority of > that requirement below the priority of making it an idea framework for > doing all kinds of asynchronous message exchange patterns. So I'm not > saying Axis2 cannot be used to write a super-duper-best-of-breed > yet-another-RPC-SOAP-thing; what I want to see is that "old" RPC stuff > kept out of the core to the maximum possible extent. Yes so I can live > with leaving hooks to make that work, of course. > > I know this will cause a major battle .. but I think we need to discuss > what this effort is about long term too .. if for nothing else other > than to get everyone on the same page (its certainly possible you'll > convince me I skipped a chapter somewhere). > > Sanjiva. > > >
