I would like to see this work start in a branch. There are a number of
things that need to get ironed out and I think that a branch would be more
appropriate.
Here are some of the things that Glen and I talked about on the chat.
Single Call object per Stub versus Single Call object per Stub method
Getting rid of all of the generated "new QName" calls and use static
QName constants (I already have some code that will simplify this
process).
Need to have a Call.reset() method.
Glen said something about OperationDesc ...which I don't understand his
direction here.
Here are some other related items:
Having stubs use client side deployment data if available or at least a
way to prefer one over the other (this is an IBM request).
So I see at least changes to the Stub, Call and Description classes.
So I +1 doing this development in a branch so that we can all participate
in the process.
Sorry but for now I "-1" doing this off the head branch because I think
that it will hinder the ultimate solution.
Thanks for starting this discussion Glen!
Rich Scheuerle
IBM WebSphere & Axis Web Services Development
512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
Glen Daniels
<gdaniels@macrome To: "'Axis-Dev (E-mail)'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dia.com> cc:
Subject: Stubs moving to
single-threadedness
10/15/2002 09:28
AM
Please respond to
axis-dev
Hi folks!
As discussed last week both on the list and in person with Sam & Tom, I'd
like to switch the stubs back to the way they used to be, namely each stub
having a single Call object which gets reused. So multiple threads can
share a Service/Locator, but each stub should only be used by one thread.
This is very intuitive, I think, and has several advantages:
1) Simplicity. The code in the stubs would become much cleaner and
smaller, making reading and debugging easier
2) Ease of use. It becomes possible to rely on state changes in the stub,
which makes stub.addHeader(), stub.getCall(), etc. possible
3) (related to 2) This would enable a richer future design for dealing with
SOAP extensions in a user-friendly manner
I asked for comments on this last week, but didn't hear anything. I'd like
to move forward with this - can I get a +1?
--Glen
