+1 to removing it; all that needs to be done is to move the static code to inside the constructor.
Sanjiva. On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 16:22 +0600, Ajith Ranabahu wrote: > Hi all, > Let me start by explaing why a static AxisService found it's way into > the stub. A stub is always for a single service and it made perfect > sense to have a single AxisService object embedded in the stub. This > has been always the case and all the Axis1 crowd would remember that > they had a similar static block in the stubs as well. > However now the problem is this. All the modules engaged for client > stays in the AxisService embedded in the stub. Since the undelying > AxisService is static, it prevents the user from assuming that each > stub instance is independent of each other (they infact share a static > AxisService and if some modules are engaged to one instance they endup > engaged into the other as well). As all of you can see this whole > issue came into being since we use the axis service to handle the > engaged modules > As far as I can see we need to use instance variables instead of > statics. We lose the reusability but in this case resusing is > theoretically impossible. I have to agree with Deepal in this and my > guess is that we'll have to remove the static block altogether. > > thoughts ? > > -- > Ajith Ranabahu
