Hi Dug,
 
When we design Axis2 we consider these two problems (WS-Addressing and Async Support) as core problems in Axis and the solution we came up was to split the send  and receive  paths in a message flow. This mechanism works fine and Axis2 is able to support all the messaging scenarios including fully asynchronous case (where a separate listener is required in the client side)
 
So just wanted to know, whether the changes you mentioned are similar to the above for Axis?
 
Thanks,
 
Jaliya
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Davis
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:01 PM
Subject: integrating wsa into core axis


axis-dev'ers - I'd like take some axis changes I have and commit them. The
first round of stuff focuses on splitting the axis engines so that it can
more easily deal with async messages.  In particular, in the stuff I'd
like to commit soon (asap) it splits the client-side engine apart so that
the two sides of the chains can be invoked separately.  This, in
conjunction with moving WS-Addressing logic in the base Axis code, allows
a client to more easily send and receive async messages.  It also allows
for other technologies, like WS-RM and WS-Security, to be more easily
plugged-in.  The next set of changes (asap too :-)  would do the same
thing on the server. One of axis's biggest flaws is its lack of support
for async messaging - I think these changes will go a long way towards
fixing that.  Most of the changes don't actually involved new code -
rather simply moving things around since we still need to do the same
things, just in a slightly more modular way.    Anyway, I've discussed
this, off-line, with a couple of axis-dev'ers already and they were in
favor of it but before I actually did it I wanted to make sure there
wasn't any huge objection to it.  For the most part, if you don't turn on
the WS-Addr support then nothing should really change - and there's no
harm - but if you believe WS-Addr will be core to soap (as I do) then
having native support for it will benefit axis's customers.
thanks,
-Doug

Reply via email to