-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ruwan,
How about a pointer to a public discussion on why SMTP Transport changes were debated? :) - -- dims Ruwan Linton wrote: | Glen, | | I agree with you. But my concern is the history. That is, when ever we | (synapse) wanted some transport specific feature for synapse to be added to | axis2 transports axis2 community was not accepting them due to many reasons | most of them are valid for web services, but from the synapse point of view, | we do not need to (and should not) bound to the web services. Isn't it? | | This behavior is affecting the evolution of synapse and that is why we went | ahead and developed our own transports. (Best example is the SMTP transport) | | Thanks, | Ruwan | | On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | wrote: | |> Hi Ruwan: |> |> If a given transport really only has relevance in the Synapse environment, |> then of course that transport has no need to exist outside Synapse. But if |> a transport is generically useful, I'd prefer to see it somewhere in WS |> space as opposed to specifically within Synapse. And if some generic |> transport needs tweaking in particular ways for Synapse, then those ways |> should be exposed as configuration or plug-points on the transport, which |> get exercised by Synapse (but also tested in the transport build). Example |> - the nhttp transport could just include a callback property which, if set, |> passes the 202 to a listener and ignores it otherwise (perhaps that's |> exactly the way it works). In the SMTP case, we should discuss what |> happens, but again I don't see any issue with making a clean and useful |> general SMTP transport - why should there need to be two of them?? |> |> Here's my use case. Someone wants to use nhttp, or JMS, or SMTP, with |> Axis2. They're not a Synapse user and are not interested in downloading |> Synapse. I want to make sure that this user can easily locate, download, |> and install the transport they want. At the same time I want the Axis2 and |> the Synapse communities both sharing their skills to make the best set of |> transports available for Axis2 and of course Axis2+Synapse. |> |> I'm not wedded to the details, as long as we can make that happen. It |> seems to me right now that ws-commons/transports is a better way to do this |> than having lots of extension transports in Synapse, but I'm willing to be |> convinced otherwise. |> |> Thanks, |> --Glen |> |> Ruwan Linton wrote: |> |>> I forgot to mention that, of cause one can use these transports with |>> knowing the limitations and issues of those, when working directly with |>> axis2 |>> |>> Thanks, |>> Ruwan |>> |>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Ruwan Linton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: |>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: |>> |>> Hi Dims, Glen and all, |>> |>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Davanum Srinivas |>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: |>> | Glen, | | At this point, Can we please agree that it's better for the | people who actually work on it have their way :) | | |>>> +1 for this idea ... and one more thing is that; | |>>> Although the transports which resides under synapse code base are |>>> just axis2 transports, there are some special cases that synapse |>>> needs from its transports. For example; | | * nhttp transport requires 202 Accepted HTTP messages to be | injected inside to synapse so that it can complete mediation | of one-way messages as well as we need those messages to be | injected on the separateListener case, where as axis2 should | just neglect those HTTP messages. | * Same with 500 Internal Server Error on nhttp | * smtp transport requires to treat all the Cc headers and Cc the | message to all the specified addresses (we have discussed this | earlier on axis2 and this is wrong according to the WS-MEPs, | because there are many outs) | |>>> There are a number of synapse specific logic inside synapse |>>> transports, because synapse is not purely bound to WS space, but it |>>> is a mediation framework (ESB) which should support most of the |>>> other scenarios going out of the WS space. There for these |>>> transports may not directly work with axis2 and it is not at all a |>>> good idea to move them out from synapse code base. | |>>> Thanks, |>>> Ruwan | | | | thanks, | dims | | | Glen Daniels wrote: | | Asankha C. Perera wrote: | |> Dims | |>> - there should not be stale copies | |>> - people who work on them should work where they want to. | |> +1 to both! | | | | Agreed - I'd just prefer people wanted to work on them under | WS/Axis. :) | | | |> I'd like to maintain these under Synapse.. We wrote these | transports | |> primarily for use by Synapse, and now we have JMS, | NIO-HTTP/S, Mail, | |> VFS (File), FIX and AMQP already.. These belong to a separate | Maven | |> module thats published to the Apache snapshots and Maven |>>> Central | |> repos, and | | | | Hm. So this is a bit of a separate conversation, but *each* | of the | | transports should be its own deployable artifact. If I want | the AMQP | | transport for some work I'm doing, I don't want to bother | downloading | | all the others.... Wherever they end up we should fix that!! | | | |> this JAR does not depend on the Synapse codebase at all. | Anyone who | |> wishes to use these can do so without any problems | whatsoever, and | |> raise JIRA's for bugs/enhancements where the code is actually | maintained. | | | | Yeah. I just think this makes a lot more sense under WS. | | | |>> | | These transports (JMS, NIO, whatever) are going to be | generally | |>> useful to any Axis2 user, so why make them go look in |>>> Synapse's | |>> codebase for them? | |> I agree,.. however these transports were written by the |>>> Synapse | |> community for primary use by them. So instead of asking them |>>> to | |> maintain the code they write somewhere else - for the | convenience of | |> the secondary users, why not clearly document the available | options | |> under Axis2 and where one could download these extension | transports | |> developed by the Synapse community? | | | | Sure, I'm not saying that wouldn't work - what's really | important to me | | is that Axis2 users get a clear picture of the available | transports when | | they download Axis2 and use our website. This is both to avoid | | duplication of effort and to enable users to use the richest | set of | | components available. It seems to me that the most natural way |>>> to | | achieve this is to contribute new transports to ws-commons or | Axis2. | | | | Also consider this - wouldn't it be cool to be able to run the | Axis2 | | test suite (which is presumably much more comprehensive than | Synapse's | | testing of Axis2) over each of the transports that Synapse | originally | | built? I would think that might demonstrate some issues that | Synapse | | itself might not find, thus enabling the transports to be | improved. | | | | But if the community wants to keep developing these under | Synapse, then | | we definitely need some pointers in the Axis2 code and web | pages, and | | those pointers need to be maintained. | | | | Thanks, | | --Glen | | | | | |>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | |>> |>> |>> |>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |>> |>> |>> |>> |>> -- Ruwan Linton |>> http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" |>> |>> |>> |>> -- |>> Ruwan Linton |>> http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" |>> |> --------------------------------------------------------------------- |> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |> |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFIDjKKgNg6eWEDv1kRAh1oAKDIPJ82Fr+3ddfsLKFVWqM4kNDIsQCdENFH aJEx3JawYLsf7TzW9ybtGYc= =8Rqf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
