Well, let me soften it a bit... it doesn't NEED to be serializable, but it
SHOULD be serializable. I'm just thinking into the future here a bit. If
you look at the internal message exchange proposal, you'll see two
interfaces called MessageChannel and MessageExchangeCorrelationService.
The prototype implementation of these interfaces does everything in
memory, but that's not very robust should the server experience a failure
of some sort. For situations requiring reliable delivery, one could
easily imagine a persistent MessageChannel and correlation service
implementation that stores the message context out to a database or
whatever while it is waiting to be sent.
- James Snell
IBM Emerging Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(559) 587-1233 (office)
(700) 544-9035 (t/l)
Programming Web Services With SOAP
O'Reilly & Associates, ISBN 0596000952
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous.
Do not be terrified, do not be discouraged, for the Lord your
God will be with you whereever you go. - Joshua 1:9
Glyn Normington/UK/IBM@IBMGB
10/24/2002 07:39 AM
Please respond to axis-dev
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
bcc
Subject
Re: Architectural improvements
James Snell wrote:
>a) MessageContext needs to be serializable
Why? (and wouldn't it perform poorly?)
Glyn
