Amila Suriarachchi wrote: > I am not an expert on this area. Please see my comments bellow and > please correct me if I am wrong. > > On Dec 14, 2007 11:05 PM, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I also agree with David here. > > Nandana, can you please explain why you need to hard code security > phases in to axis2.xml? Does this mean we need to have n number of > phases if Axis2 is supporting n WS-* spcs? > > > exactly yes (if new WS* spces needs handlers and those handlers can > not be placed in available phases). I think this is the reason why > phases like addressing, security and RM are there in the axis2.xml. > > If that is the case then I > feel there is something wrong with Axis2 architecture itself. > > > As I guess this is the reason > Modules (or module.xml) does not allow you to declare Phases. Phases > can only be declared in Axis2.xml it self. > Module can only declare handlers for any flow. To place a handler in a > phase then that phase > must be there in the axis2.xml for corresponding flow. Yes , and I do not see any problem with that and believe any USER does not complain about that , and only developers are trying to introduce that. > > So in this case if some one wants to place a security handler at > outFault flow then security phase > must be there in the outfault flow in axis2.xml. Module writer can > only use phase rules to place the handler within the phase. Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
