Got it. I will go that way. Regards, Yang Sun
2008/7/2 Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sun Yang wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for your comment and considering applying my patch. I am thinking >> to do a refactoring after this discussion. So please give me a little time >> before I make it better. Currently, I want to get the answers for the >> following questions based on our discussion in this thread before I start >> the refactoring. >> >> 1. what action we should do when client use endSequence command to end the >> conversation from the line protocol level? Do we need to manually recycle >> the conversation variables or just wait for its timeout? >> 2. how to switch between WS-Addressing/WS-RM conversation implementation? >> Is a preference OK for this situation. >> > > > I think the right approach would be to use a policy intent/policySet > so that the selection could be configured in SCDL on a per-wire > or per-binding basis. The SCA 1.0 Web Service binding spec defines a > policySet that can be used for exactly this purpose. Here's the > definition (see section 2.2.3): > > <policySet name="WSRM-Sequence-based-conversation" > provides="sca:conversation" > appliesTo="sca:binding.ws"> > <wsp:Policy> > <wsrmp:RMAssertion > xmlns:wsrmp="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200608"/> > </wsp:Policy> > </policySet> > > If this policySet is specified, WS-RM conversation should be used. If not, > the current WS-Addressing conversation implementation should be used. > > Simon > > > 3. how to solve the conversation state confliction between the service / >> reference side (maybe it is out of the scope of this improvement)? >> >> I will provide a new patch bundled with tests after the refactoring. >> >> Regards, >> Yang Sun >> >>
