Glen, For my sake, could you please post a "[Proposal]"? Please don't make me read the whole thread :)
thanks, dims On 6/4/07, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Deepal: > When we start Axis2 we had a long discussing on phase , phase rule and > there we finally decided not to allow add phases by modules. If some one > want to add a phase then he/she needs to go and add that to axis2.xml. > So please do not introduce such features at this moment. As I think > Axis2 is a stable product and a number of applications are using Axis2. > And none of them requested such a features in the list , so as > developers we should not introduce unwanted features . I strongly > believe what we have at the moment more than enough to satisfy our goal. Hm. While the current system technically works, the old Axis1 Phase-less way of deploying ordered Handlers worked too, as long as you were sufficiently careful and correct. :) Modules right now aren't really pluggable components. To use a Module which uses non-standard phases in your service, you need to a) read the Module documentation and understand WHICH phases you need to add to the global configuration, AND in what order (this seems like EXACTLY the kind of stuff we were trying to move from documentation to config/code for Axis2), b) change axis2.xml accordingly, and c) deploy the module globally. That's a pain, and I think it's kind of ironic that it's exactly this kind of configuration we were avoiding for Handlers. It's like we've gone halfway, and I would really like to go the rest of the way so that Modules can just work together without the intervention of skilled human technicians modifying global configuration files. IMHO the only times you should be REQUIRED to touch config files as an "assembler" of prebuilt components should be to resolve a conflict. (While we're on the subject I also continue to think that we should allow packaging Modules in Service archives - i.e. services/MyService/modules/foo.mar. It's a very analogous situation.) > So I am -1 on this proposal. I'd like to hear what others think. If I'm the only one advocating this, then I'll back off. If there's a lot of support for this idea, perhaps we can get you on board with it with some further discussion. What do others think? > May be we can add that for Axis3 (if we are planing to do so :) ) Deepal, I would be kind of bummed if we had to do an Axis3. It would mean we didn't get it right in Axis2. Thanks, --Glen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
