-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 A big +1 for David. I fought to keep them separate from day one and still continue to do so :).
Do you want to send addressing headers when it is not required? When you are doing synchronous operations, which I think most people are doing, you can do it without addressing. As David also have mentioned, let's bundle addressing with Axis2, but let's not engage it by default. I hope this is not another idea came in another ApacheCon ;) Chinthaka David Illsley wrote: > Hi Deepal, not too crazy an idea :-) > > I have to say I'm against removing the addressing module as an entity > as I think it makes conceptual sense. I'd like to keep it easy to > deploy/undeploy and to add stuff to/remove stuff from. (Aside: I'd > personally prefer all the standard handlers/dispatchers be in a 'core' > module so that it'd be easier for us to change/add them with minimal > impact on user customised axis2.xml files.) > > I'm totally sympathetic to bundling the addressing function so that > it's easier for people to use. I'm hesitant to add it to the default > axis2.xml because in the client this would have the impact of > requiring an action to be set. > > So hypothetically, if we bundled the addressing module into kernel, > that would mean we could make the OperationClient engage the > addressing module (if it isn't already) if isUseSeparateListener is > set which makes things simple for the user and doesn't upset existing > apps. > > Personally I'm happy with engaging addressing by default on the server > (if we can somehow do it just for the server), but I'm aware of people > who would want an easy way to disable it because they have concerns > about their servers being used for DOS attacks using wsa:ReplyTo. > > The above reasons are why I'd like to retain the module conceptually > even if it ceases to exist as a separate '.mar'. > > David > > On 01/06/07, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I know what I an going to tell is a crazy idea , but I analyzed this >> well before posting to the list. >> >> As you all know addressing module is a key part of axis2 and no one can >> use asynchronous web services without addressing. For me its same as no >> one can use Axis2 without dispatchers. We are telling users if they want >> asynchronous support or soap session support to engage the addressing >> module and do the invocation. >> >> In the meantime reliable messaging , security (not always ) can not work >> without addressing , therefore I think keeping addressing as a module we >> do not gain anything than giving hard time to users. So why dont we >> integrate addressing into axis2.xml and give addressing support out of >> the box. >> >> As I mentioned earlier for me integrating addressing into axis2 to core >> is same as keeping dispatchers in the core. So lets remove addressing >> module and add those handlers into axis2.xml , if we do so we can solve >> a number of user issues as well (the issues they are getting at the >> client side). >> >> What do you think abt my suggestion , I am +1 on removing addressing >> module and add those handlers into axis2.xml. >> >> P.S :- we can have a switch to turn on and turn off addressing. >> >> Thanks >> Deepal >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGYhysjON2uBzUhh8RAiJTAJ9HBoFA0cOVZwPkSAWfrYc9mNBmIgCgh5Wk 3691aQD+XIl+9ofvQ08rMXc= =bmMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
