On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Tully, Gary wrote: > The Header Object would deal with soap headers, right?
Well, if other bindings have a way to map them into something, they could do so. SOAP is definitely the main one. > Would a transport agnostic approach to dealing with > javax.xml.ws.handler.MessageContext.HTTP_REQUEST_HEADERS work? > So over JMS, the contents of a user provided HTTP_REQUEST_HEADERS > would be mapped to a message property using some simple convention. In > other words, any transport that *can* would consume and propagate > HTTP_REQUEST_HEADERS/HTTP_RSPONSE_HEADERS. > > The implementation could be bases on the CXF MessageContext so that > the simple front end could work also. That is, it need not just be the > jaxws property that is recognised. Ah. Yes. I misread Balaji's question. He was asking about transport headers, not binding level header. In that case, yes the MessageContext.HTTP_REQUEST_HEADERS should be used. Technically, the transport should use Message.PROTOCOL_HEADERS on the message for whatever direction that message is going. The HTTP_REQUEST_HEADERS thing is a JAX-WS thing that we map onto the PROTOCOL_HEADERS. Dan > > Thanks, > Gary. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 18 December 2007 15:14 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Balaji Ravi > > Subject: Re: Abstraction on getting headers of different transports > > > > > > Balaji, > > > > There is the Header object (org.apache.cxf.headers package in > > API) that > > was added to start going down that route. It's currently > > just used for > > out of band headers, but ideally, the header in/out > > interceptors would work with those (copy/move the objects > > to/from the parameter list to the header list) and the SOAP > > binding would just need to deal with the > > header list. That second part hasn't really been started yet > > though. > > > > Dan > > > > On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Balaji Ravi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I need to populate a custom header regardless of the underlying > > > transport. How do i do it without having to cater of every > > > > transport? > > > > > I don't see anything in the message/exchange which will > > > > hold on to all > > > > > the headers. AFAIK, I would need to get headers specific to the > > > transport & populate them. > > > > > > Is this correct? If so, are there any plans to support this case? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Balaji > > > > -- > > J. Daniel Kulp > > Principal Engineer, IONA > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > ---------------------------- > IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland) > Registered Number: 171387 > Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, > Ireland -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
