Hi Nandana, I have looked at the axis2-mtompolicy-mar and the fixed axis2-mtompolicy. Now we are much more closer to the MTOM-Policy specification. Anyway there are some things that we need to be fixed (e.g. MTOMPolicy class engageNotify method is not correct at the moment, but this is easy to be fixed), but this is not the most importatnt thing. Just to comment, I agree with the prepositions you have made. Now it seems we can do the following:
1) As we have discussed we can make parameter and policy assertion configuration backward compatible. Doing so the user will have the freedom to choose the both ways to configure MTOM and stay backward compatible. This means that the parameter should reflect the policy (i.e. have it serialized into the WSDL as policy) and vice versa (i.e. if policy is available then a parameter is added to the service). 2) make full implementation of the MTOM Policy specification and provide the proper error handling for all use cases that we could come across (e.g.Here we can make use of a handler. ) 3) Think if we really need any custom policy assertions for MTOM? Anyway I think wih the current concept it is possible to document how it is possible to extend and make use of custom assertions (e.g. if you read the spec - 3.2 Assertion Syntax - you can have /wsoma:OptimizedMimeSerialization/@any - This is an extensibility mechanism to allow additional attributes to be added to the element. then a custom handler can take place). We need to discuss this. 4) As you have mentioned, we need to figure out how to deal with dynamically changing policies / parameters. WDYT? Regards, Dobri On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Dobri, > > I mean that the "optional" MTOM configuration is not implemented (i.e. >> /wsoma: OptimizedMimeSerialization/@wsp:Optional="true"). >> > > Yep. Created a JIRA for that [1] and fixed it. > > >> You are right. I can agree this may cause an overkill, but can you be >> more concrete? Anyway I think that the natural way to configure a QoS is >> making use of policies and modules? All these give us lots of benefits (e.g. >> interoperability, modularity etc.). Please, can you give the cons of doing >> that. IMHO I can agree this will consume lots of efforts for creating a >> module that give a little functionality at the end and module that we do not >> expect to develop too much in the future (compared to Rampart for example). >> Anyway we should decide if this is ok for the long term. Isn't that >> inevitable to move MTOM in a module at some point of time? >> > > My concern was that whether people will like to add a new module just to do > MTOM configuration. But when we think it though it seems it is reasonable > to have a module for this. So what I thought was a module that sets the the > MTOM parameters according to the policy. We can also do the other way around > too by setting the policy when MTOM is enabled using the parameters. So > when MTOM is configured either way, the policy will appear in the WSDL. I > have created a prototype for the module [2]. People will still be able to > set MTOM parameters without engaging this module if there don't care about > policy and everything will be backward compatible. > > We can create a private custom assertion too which will contain > configuration options described here [2]. This will be something similar to > RampartConfig assertion in Rampart module. > > WDYT ? > > thanks, > nandana > > [1] - http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-4046 > [2] - https://wso2.org/repos/wso2/people/nandana/mtompolicy/ > [3] - http://wso2.org/library/264 > > > > > > >> [1] - http://wso2.org/library/264 >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Thilina Gunarathne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Axis2 has a mtom-policy implementation and I hope it works, but I have >>>>> not tested it personally... >>>>> >>>>> We went a little bit further with enableMTOM... >>>>> >>>>> http://thilinag.blogspot.com/2007/07/improved-apache-axis2-attachment.html >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Thilina >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Dobri Kitipov < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> currently I am researching the possibilities to make MTOM >>>>>> configuration more advanced, than just saying that enableMTOM=true. For >>>>>> example it will be nice to specify a threshold that defines the size of >>>>>> the >>>>>> binary when MTOM to be activated etc. >>>>>> I want to ask and if there are any plans to support the WS-MTOMPolicy. >>>>>> Is there any willing/steps into the community to support this in the near >>>>>> future. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, Dobri >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thilina Gunarathne - http://thilinag.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> <http://www.wso2.org> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Nandana Mihindukulasooriya > WSO2 inc. > > http://nandana83.blogspot.com/ > http://www.wso2.org >
