Hi Andreas, Yes, that is correct.
Regards, Pétur Runólfsson Betware ________________________________________ From: Andreas Veithen [andreas.veit...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 10:33 To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [Axis2] Make RPCUtil more flexible So, to summarize: You are happy with most of the JavaBeans <-> XML mapping rules, but you want to customize some of them (e.g. java.util.Date/java.util.Calendar <-> xsd:date/xsd:dateTime mapping or the way arrays are mapped), without modifying Axis2 code (or creating a fork of it). Is that correct? I think that is a valid use case that we should support, but we need to do that in a proper way without degrading the architecture. Andreas On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:29, Pétur Runólfsson<pe...@betware.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjiva, > >> I guess your point is that RPCMessageReceiver does everything you want >> except do the JavaBeans <-> XML mapping the way you want? > > Exactly. > >> In that case, can you not subclass the message receiver and redirect some >> code? > > That's what I would like to do, but it's currently not possible because all > the interesting methods are static and can't be overridden. That's why the > original patch changed some of those methods to be instance methods instead. > > Regards, > > Pétur Runólfsson > Betware > ________________________________________ > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [sanj...@opensource.lk] > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 02:48 > To: axis-dev > Subject: Re: [Axis2] Make RPCUtil more flexible > > Hi ... I'm a bit confused. Do you want to modify the behavior of ADB or the > behavior of JavaBeans <-> XML mapping? The follow-up email proposal suggests > the latter. > > If its the latter, the design approach in Axis2 was that you'd have your own > message receiver that did whatever you want. I guess your point is that > RPCMessageReceiver does everything you want except do the JavaBeans <-> XML > mapping the way you want? In that case, can you not subclass the message > receiver and redirect some code? > > Sanjiva. > > 2009/6/18 Pétur Runólfsson <pe...@betware.com<mailto:pe...@betware.com>> > Hi Andreas, > > I agree that just taking RPCUtil and making the methods non-static doesn't > result in a great design. On the other hand it's a quick way to get some more > flexibility without changing much code. > > Anyway, in order to get started on an API, here are the things called by > RPCMessageReceiver I think are most important to be customizable: > > * Conversion from OMElement to Object (approximately > BeanUtil.processObject(OMElement omElement, Class classType, MultirefHelper > helper, boolean isArrayType, ObjectSupplier objectSupplier), or maybe > BeanUtil.deserialize(OMElement response, Object [] javaTypes, ObjectSupplier > objectSupplier, String[] parameterNames), depending on how arrays should be > treated) > * Conversion from Object to OMElement (most of > RPCUtil.processResponse(SOAPFactory fac, Object resObject, OMElement > bodyContent, OMNamespace ns, SOAPEnvelope envelope, Method method, boolean > qualified, TypeTable typeTable), also BeanUtil.getPullParser(Object > beanObject, QName beanName, TypeTable typeTable, boolean qualified, boolean > processingDocLitBare), the interface here might be more convenient to extend > if the XMLStreamReader was dropped and objects converted directly to > OMElement instead) > > This might result in an interface like: > > public interface BeanConverter { > Object deserialize(OMElement omElement, Class targetType); > OMElement serialize(Object object, QName name); > } > > OMElement could maybe be replaced with XMLStreamReader, but I think the > interface is much nicer if the same type is used in both directions. Note > that ObjectSupplier, MultirefHelper, SOAPEnvelope, TypeTable, SOAPFactory, > qualified and processingDocLitBare don't need to be parameters on the > (de)serialize methods in this interface, since implementations will be > stateful. There should probably be setters for them in the interface. > > There are other things that could be interesting extension points (for > example handling errors from the service method, or looking up the service > method), but I think the above two would be a good start. > > Regards, > > Pétur Runólfsson > Betware > ________________________________________ > From: Andreas Veithen > [andreas.veit...@gmail.com<mailto:andreas.veit...@gmail.com>] > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 14:14 > To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org<mailto:axis-dev@ws.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [Axis2] Make RPCUtil more flexible > > Pétur, > > I didn't look in detail at your suggestion, but I have some doubts > from an architecture point of view. I don't think that taking an > existing utility class and promote that to an API or extension point > will improve the quality of the Axis2 architecture. If there are > aspects that need to be configurable or extensible, than we should > define a proper API for that. > > Andreas > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 13:19, Pétur > Runólfsson<pe...@betware.com<mailto:pe...@betware.com>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For various reasons, I have on several occasions wanted to modify the >> behavior of ADB. Unfortunately, in many cases the only way to do this is to >> change the ADB source code and recompile, because most of the relevant bits >> of ADB is composed of static methods that can't be overridden. >> >> Here is a patch to convert some of the static methods to instance methods. >> The patch removes the static qualifier from all methods in RPCUtil. A >> protected RPCUtil member is added to the classes that use RPCUtil >> (RPCMessageReceiver and JavaTransportSender). This makes it possible to >> customize RPCUtil by extending those classes and setting the RPCUtil member >> to a subclass of RPCUtil. >> >> Because this patch removes static qualifiers from public methods, the change >> is neither source nor binary compatible. If this is a problem, it is >> possible instead to move the code to a new class (maybe named RPCInvoker?), >> and have RPCMessageReceiver and JavaTransportSender use that class. RPCUtil >> would have a static instance of new new class and forward all calls to that. >> If keeping compatibility is preferred, I can make a new patch that does this. >> >> Regards, >> >> Pétur Runólfsson >> Betware > > > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; > http://www.opensource.lk/ > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ > Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ > > Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ The content of this e-mail, together with any of its attachments, is for the exclusive and confidential use of the named addressee(s) and it may contain legally privileged and confidential information and/or copyrighted material. Any other distribution, use or reproduction without the sender's prior consent is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have by coincidence, mistake or without specific authorization received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail immediately, uphold strict confidentiality and neither read, copy, transfer, disseminate, disclose nor otherwise make use of its content in any way and delete the material from your computer. The content of the e-mail and its attachments is the liability of the individual sender, if it does not relate to the affairs of Betware. Betware does not assume any civil or criminal liability should the e-mail or it´s attachments be virus infected.
