My suggestion is Axis2 admin sets a flag in axis2.xml, allowing module authors to add their own phases, during module init.
If the flag is set, then Sandesha can add a phase. BTW, why do you wanna have your own phase ? -- Chinthaka Deepal Jayasinghe wrote: > Hi Chamikara > > I remember we had this discussion at the last f2f we had in Colombo and > the final conclusion was not to allows module to add phases by itself. > If some module require some specific phase then adding a phase is just > a matter of changing the axis2.xml. > > I know if some one want to change axis2.xml in oder to deploy a module > that is not a good idea and that break modulelarity of a module. There > for my suggestion is we should treat module like Security , Sandesha > separately and if they want some phase we should add them into > default_axis2.xml > > I am +1 on supporting Sandesha , Security etc by default . > > And I dont like the idea of adding phases by module when they get > initialize , that may lead system into unknown state , since no one know > what we are going to have at the runtime. > > > Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Phases are a nice feature in axis2 that is used by many module >> authors. But there is a small defect in this that limits its usability >> to some extend. This is the inability for modules to add their own >> phases without doing changes to the axis2.xml. >> >> For e.g. Sandesha2 module expect to add its handlers to a custom phase >> called 'RMPhase'. But since this cannot be added by itselt (for e.g. >> by mentioning in the module.xml), users have to always edit the >> axis2.xml file by hand and add this phase. This makes the task >> difficult for users and is error prone. >> >> I believe it will be useful to make this feature available. My be we >> can have a switch in axis2.xml which tells weather modules are allowed >> to dynamically add their own phases or not. >> >> comments ... ? >> >> >> Chamikara > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
