Dan Diephouse wrote:
On 3/13/07, Polar Humenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> [snip]
>
> No, think of an activation namespace as a transport id. As in "
> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http";
>
So, what does a "transport id" mean? In particular what does the above
URL mean as a transport id?
In http2 the HTTPTransportFactory seems to get registered under the
following "activation namespaces" or "transport id"s.
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/http
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http
http://cxf.apache.org/transports/http/configuration
http://cxf.apache.org/bindings/xformat
So if a CondiutInitator is registered under all of these "transport id"
what's the common factor that unites them? Or what are their
differentiators? What do they signify?
They can be "foobar" for all I care. They're just some way to link
together
an EndpointInfo and a Conduit/Destination.
WSDL uses various different namespaces to refer to HTTP, at least two of
them are WSDL ids. The last two should should not be there. And I think
there is the possibility that the remaining two could be removed.
C'mon guys, they *have* to *mean* something, and there must be something
common about them!
So, if you say its a "way" to link together EndpointInfo and a Conduit,
then it has no dependence on any meaning external to CXF? Somehow I
don't believe that.
What would happen if a conduit initiator wasn't registered under some of
these names?
Lets say for example, the one ending in "/configuration".
What would break?
Would a client not be able to talk to specified endpoint in a particular
WSDL file? Would a client not be able to send a message to a logical
host it constructed programmatically?
-Polar
