Srinath Perera wrote:
>Hi All; > >Got two comments on the Client API (I am afraid I too involve in >designing them, but got doubts) > >At the MEPClient API, does is there a special reason to have the following two > >1) Have the OperationDescription as a input in the invokeXX()? >I think this do not make sense at all, we have already given the >ServiceContext at the constructor and we can look up the operation, it >is sufficent for user to just give a QName. Sometime users are force >to create a operation to invoke > > Well, we should ask this question from you, as AFAIK, you are the one who did that. Was it ? Anyway, how can you know from the service context, the operation you gonna invoke. You have to explicitly give the name of the operation. I agree that you it should not be a must to give the operation description. And at the same time, as once suggested by Paul, there should be a way to invoke a web service, without giving the name of the operation. I hope this is not weird. >2) Have the MessageContext as input >Are we gain anything with this that we can not have with options, how >about the SOAPEnvelope? Becouse MessageContext is vague .. and users >do not decide from the API what properties should be st or not. > >I am curious How many of you have EVER used the MEPClient API e.g. >InOutMEPCleint instead of Call. I have done it in few occasions, and >it was possible because I know what exactly going inside. Otherwise it >is not that easy to use that layer due to above method signatures. How >many of us developers use it? > > Its called flexibility man. If you know enough of Axis2, Call is not enough for you. There will be lot of people like that in the future, who will populate all the required information in to message context and give to AxisEngine. I do not want MessageContext to be removed from the methods. Having convenience methods is fine, but those do not necessitate to remove the low level methods. Chinthaka >Thanks >Srinath > >p.s. Real reason for my Q is trouble I get while I implement the WSDL >based dynamic invoker. I get serious misgiving while trying to do it. >See below > >Problem with Dynamic Invocation >======================== >I think I should be creating Call and MessageSender Objects rather >than InOutMEPClient and InOnlyMEPCleint as the latter accept message >contexts and AxisOperations, as a result not very user friendly . >right? > >But if I choose the first I can not use the information available to me >via the WSDL (like AxisOperation) as Call and MessageSender assume >certain things (e.g. create a Dummy Operation by the name) > >What do you think and recommend? I am not sure which way to go > > >
