> There may be some reasons for this to follow > the JAXM model. But to make really sure I would need to > do some more thorough investigation. In doing so what have you fixed? Not having to depend on Message, you can share Attachments between messages. In catalog type services you might want to get *latest* dataset. Instead of creating an AttachmentPart object for each request, you could have it pre cached. Of cause you could hold on to a copy of DataHandler, but why create this complexity of 2 way referencing if it can avoided?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Rineholt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Attachment support optional?!? > > > >I have been playing with Attachment code trying to improve > it a little, > and > >fill in the missing parts/TODOs. > >Doing that I am not understanding 2 basic things in the design. > >1) Why would you want to compile Axis without attachment > support? Doing so > >creates, in my opinion, unneeded code complexity. And w/o attachment > support > >you've got a broken SOAP toolkit. > It was a requirement that was decided by the Axis community > as whole. Axis > has many > other components that are compiled in or out. If I recall > correctly it was > decide that some > light weight requirements may not want attachment support. > >2) Why did Part object (and attachments themselves) had > reference to the > >Message? Only SOAPPart needed access to MessageContext. I was able to > >painlessly take out reference to Message from Part and > Attachments, but I > am > >wandering if I am missing something very basic. > Some of this interface was there when I added the code to > make attachments > work. I believe that it was added for future support and > attachments and > parts should be > associated with message they are part of. There may be some > reasons for > this to follow > the JAXM model. But to make really sure I would need to > do some more thorough investigation. In doing so what have you fixed? > > > Rick Rineholt > "The truth is out there... All you need is a better search engine!" > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
