Hi Renamed the subject to better reflect the topic of this thread. I've spent a bit of time trying to make a test verifyiing attachments can be handled by Provider<Source> implementations working and finally I found what seems to be the last stumbling block.
As it happens, all in-interceptors for Provider-based endpoints, specifically the ones added at XMLBinding creation time, are cleared away in ProviderChainObserver::onMessage() : endpoint.getBinding().getInInterceptors().clear(); endpoint.getBinding().getInInterceptors().add(new DispatchInInterceptor()); As Eoghan explained to me, this is in fact compatible with the JAX-WS spec, as Providers are willing to deal with Sources (XML) directly, so any XMLBinding interceptors required to serve SEI endpoints. Unfortunately, the way it's done at the moment causes a problem in case of the attachments coming in a multpart/related package, simply because AttachmentInInterceptors required to deserialize the message properly so that a root part of the mutlipart/related package can be presented as a Source, is cleared away. Actually, as far as I understand, the same problem would apply to Provider<Source> provideres served by HTTPBinding. So what would be the best way to solve this problem ? Several options are possible. * In ProviderChainObserver::onMessage() explictly add AttachmentInInterceptors in front of the DispatchInInterceptor, simpliest solution possibly, but not generic. * clear away only those interceptors which are not instanceof certain AbstractInterceptor types so that interceptors to do with the (de)serializing, logging, etc can be left in the chain * Update base Interceptor interface to have a method like getType() or smth like that so that binding interceptors dealing with SEI invocatins can be removed... I'd aprerciate some feedback on this. By the way, I've just found that by implementing Provider<DataSource> (with Service.MODE=Message), I can actually get all the raw data coming in, be they in XMl or not XML format, and also I can serve GET requests by returning non-XML data. This is great. Only thing is that it's much handier to deal with Map<String, DataHandler> then parsing all the attchment stuff manually :-) so once the pacth is applied I'd consider doing Provider<Source>. Only minor issue is that text/xml is set as Content-Type all the time, but it's a minor issue indeed. Cheers, Sergey Hi What's the recommended approach for setting uninitilzied properties in JAXWS. For ex, if message.getAttachments() returns null then should I add an empty map as a MessageContext.INBOUND_ATTACHMENT_VALUE ? I'd prefer adding the empty map, this would probably be consistent with the way other similar values are being setup..but I can add nothing in case of unitialized attachments if it would more consistent with the way CXF inits properties... Thanks, Sergey > I'm fine with just throwing everything in the Map for now. We can create a > LazyAttachmentMap later - having the functionality is most important part at > this point :-) A JIRA for the LazyAttachmentMap would be great too. Thanks, > - Dan > > On 1/23/07, Sergey Beryozkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I suppose we can have a unmodifyable Map<String, DataHandler> >> implementation using Collection<Attachment> internally for >> iterating/queries. I guess the only performance benefit we can get with it >> is that the provider's invoke() can be hit without caching in all the >> attachemnats first...But this I think is important when a provider can >> proceed with handling the invocation without reading all the attachments it >> may need first which may not always be possible... >> >> If you reckon it's a worthy idea (creating LazyAttachmentMap) then I can >> create a JIRA specifically to address the performance issue resulting from >> the fact that creating a HashMap<String, DataHandler> will lead to all >> attachments be read through the LazyAttachmentCollection and then perhaps >> look into it later, as at the moment I need to create a basic patch to >> ensure attachements gets delivered to XMLBinding providers... >> >> Thanks, Sergey >> >> >> >I think that JAX-WS specifies that it be typed as Map<String,DataHandler> >> > not Collection<Attachment>. The key in the map would be the Content-ID. >> So >> > we would have to convert. >> > >> > This kills performance as it requires us to cache all the attachments >> > (unlike JAXB where we can lazily load do to some hackish code :-)), but >> > there isn't much I can do about that. >> > >> > - Dan >> > >> > On 1/22/07, Sergey Beryozkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> Thanks for a hint. So I've added an AttachmentInInterceptor to the list >> of >> >> in-interceptors in the XMLBindingFactory. >> >> As far as I can see after looking through the code the side-effect of >> this >> >> addition is that an implementation of org.apache.cxf.message.Messagewill >> >> have a Collection<Attachment> set on it by the AttachmentDeserializer. >> >> >> >> Now the next problem to solve is how to make this collection visible to >> >> Provider<Source> implementations as they only see a >> >> javax.xml.ws.handler.MessageContext. I can see >> >> org.apache.cxf.jaxws.support.ContextPropertiesMapping, and it's there >> >> where a MessageContext is created, in createWebServiceContext(Exchange >> >> exchange). >> >> >> >> So in this method I've just added >> >> >> >> ctx.put(MessageContext.INBOUND_MESSAGE_ATTACHMENTS, >> >> exchange.getInMessage().getAttachments()); >> >> >> >> so that the incoming attachments if any can be visible to Provider >> impls. >> >> >> >> I reckon that's all I need. Any comments/corrections would be >> >> appreciated... >> >> >> >> Thanks, Sergey >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Dan Diephouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:47 PM >> >> Subject: Re: MIME support in XML binding >> >> >> >> >> >> > It shouldn't be too hard to support MIME with the XML binding. I >> added >> >> in >> >> > the attachment interceptors to the HTTP binding so I've already >> gotten >> >> MIME >> >> > over HTTP with no SOAP working. I think the main thing it requires is >> >> adding >> >> > the interceptors to the XMLBindingFactory. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Dan Diephouse >> > Envoi Solutions >> > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog >> > >> > > > > -- > Dan Diephouse > Envoi Solutions > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog >
