On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:51 +0600, Ajith Ranabahu wrote: > Ok, I don't want to look like the mad scientist who comes up with the > craziest theory always but I humbly think I'm talking about the same > issue of allowing the SOAPMsgCtx to co-exist without corrupting (or > rather effecting) the Axis2 system. However I also feel that I lack > knowledge of some discussions which were in the mailing lists (Silly > me) so I won't push the msgCtxtFactory theory anymore.
Ajith, the problem with the context factory approach is that Synapse requires something that'll allow Axis2 to continue to work. We can of course introduce a factory, but in order for whatever that's produces to enable Axis2 to work, it needs to extend the current Axis2 message context (right?). That's precisely the problem: there's too much stuff in there for Synapse users to care/worry about. > BTW is this SOAPMC needed to be implemented as part of Axis2 ? The > original mail seems to imply that the SOAP specific methods were > specifically for Synapse, in which case the particular 'Ctxt' needs to > be part of Synapse and not Axis2! > Am I deeply mislead or missing a crucial piece of logic here ? I much prefer Ant's suggestion in reply to your mail - create a new type and embed Axis2's MC inside it. Ant, you seem to imply that that approach was suggested earlier and rejected .. what I was arguing against earlier was creating an *alternate* MC; you are not suggesting an alternate but rather embedding the Axis2 MC and use delegation to expose what Synapse finds useful. I like that approach. Sanjiva.
