> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 March 2007 21:04 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Programatically installing interceptors per > (Bus|Service|Endpoint) > > On 3/22/07, Glynn, Eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 21 March 2007 19:12 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Programatically installing interceptors per > > > (Bus|Service|Endpoint) > > > > > > Also, I recently added an AbstractWSFeature class which > I'd like to > > > support the loading of a plugin for a particular > scenario. The idea > > > being that you can have a feature class - like a > WSSecurityFeature - > > > which configures your endpoint for something - like > WS-Security. And > > > it can just become part of the JAX-WS endpoint configuration. I > > > posted some examples of how this might work in the > client/EPR thread > > > if you're interested. I'll be answering some of the > questions that > > > arose on that shortly... > > > > > > This WSFeature stuff is interesting. > > > > One quick question, what would be the overlap between this and the > > WS-Policy framework? > > > > I'm thinking specifically of the following policy use-case: > > - policy assertion implies requirement on runtime > > - corresponding AssertionBuilder indicates it has capability to > > support this requirement > > - corresponding PolicyInterceptorProvider contributes the necessary > > interceptors to realize the capability in the dispatch chain > > - dispatch-time policy verification ensures that this capability is > > present as expected > > > > Thats an interesting idea as well. I guess I don't fully grok > all the policy stuff. But I'll check into and see if we can > just use that instead. No need to replicate that. > > Do you think there would there be an issue if we don't have a > policy schema for particular features?
Do you mean there not being a *standardized* policy schema for a particular feature? I guess in that case we could invent our own, or? Nothing against the WS*Feature idea in principle ... but probably worth thinking about a bit in terms of ensuring we don't end up with two different means (WS*Feature and WS-Policy) to a similar end (asserting a requirement on the runtime). Cheers, Eoghan
