On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Andreas Veithen <[email protected] > wrote:
> Maybe it would also make sense to merge the > AbstractTransportListenerEx code into AbstractTransportListener. In > the Axis2 transports projects there are currently no more transports > that extend AbstractTransportListener directly. However, IIRC, the FIX > transport in Synapse still extends AbstractTransportListener. Can you > verify that and check if it would make sense to refactor the FIX > transport to use AbstractTransportListenerEx? > Sure, I'll have a look. Thanks, Hiranya > > Andreas > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:50, Hiranya Jayathilaka <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Andreas Veithen < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:18, Hiranya Jayathilaka < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Folks, > >> > I was trying to get the TCP transport working with Synapse. I was able > >> > to > >> > get a simple scenario working but I have a couple of questions. > >> > 1. It seems in order to use the TCP listener, one should enable both > the > >> > TCP > >> > listener and the sender in the axis2.xml. The TCPWorker specifically > >> > checks > >> > for this condition. Is this check really necessary? > >> > 2. The transport only allows one server socket for all services. Why > >> > don't > >> > we make it possible to configure the transport at service level? That > >> > way > >> > different services can have different server sockets. We can also use > >> > that > >> > to push non-SOAP messages into services using TCP. > >> > >> I think both approaches are meaningful: > >> > >> * One socket for all services is a good approach when WS-Addressing is > >> used. > >> * One socket per service is required when WS-Addressing is not an > option. > >> > >> Note that AbstractTransportListenerEx nicely supports both options. > > > > Yes. I see that the UDP transport supports both approaches via the > > AbstractTransportListenerEx. > > > >> > >> Probably it's time to refactor the TCP transport to use > >> AbstractTransportListenerEx > > > > +1... I will invest some time into this in the next couple of days. > > Thanks, > > Hiranya > > > >> > >> (which didn't exist at the time the TCP > >> transport was implemented). > >> > >> > If these improvements sound valid and acceptable I can provide some > >> > patches. > >> > Thanks, > >> > Hiranya > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Hiranya Jayathilaka > >> > Senior Software Engineer; > >> > WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org > >> > E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 > >> > Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Hiranya Jayathilaka > > Senior Software Engineer; > > WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org > > E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 > > Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Hiranya Jayathilaka Senior Software Engineer; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com
