So, the bottom line is that it is OK to introduce a component into Axis2 that violates the Axis2 API (NonBlockingLocalTransportSender sets an incorrect value for the serverSide property) and it is not worth trying to understand how this can be fixed such that it works both in a pure Axis2 context and in Synapse? NonBlockingLocalTransportSender actually works just fine with the ServiceClient API if the incorrect code is changed so that it sets serverSide=false. Did somebody actually check what happens in Synapse when NonBlockingLocalTransportSender is made compliant with the Axis2 API? Some time ago there was a similar problem with other transports (WSCOMMONS-444) and the conclusion was that it required a change in Synapse to make these transports work properly with both Axis2 and Synapse. It is likely that this fix in Synapse also covers the case of NonBlockingLocalTransportSender.
Andreas On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:22, Amila Suriarachchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Andreas Veithen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Just to summarize: >> >> * We have added a NonBlockingLocalTransportSender into the Axis2 code >> base that doesn't respect the Axis2 APIs and that only works in >> Synapse (see AXIS2-4944). >> * I took us 5 JIRA issues (AXIS2-4967, AXIS2-5035, AXIS2-5036, >> AXIS2-5037 and AXIS2-5043) to add a TransportListener for the local >> transport. That TransportListener only implements the methods to >> calculate the EPR, but it actually calculates the wrong EPR (see >> AXIS2-5043). >> * Now the proposal is to hardcode something into the kernel to exclude >> these EPRs from WSDL generation. >> >> Can somebody please explain me what we are trying to achieve here? > > If you go through this thread you can see the answers. But let me tell you > again. > > 1. Exposing a service only with local transport. The motivation is the > security. When you expose a service only with local transport then that > service is automatically secured. Can you suggest a way to do this with > Axis2 1.6? > > 2. Second is to improve the existing local transport to work within a > synapse proxy service. This does not have a use case only at axis2 level > (same as axis2 can't use synapse nhttp transport to send/receive messages). > But I think improving the existing thing rather than having a separate > transport in synapse does not make any problem. > > thanks, > Amila. > > >> >> Andreas >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 15:06, Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Amila, >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Amila Suriarachchi >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Andreas, >> >>> So, in that case does that mean, we are going to >> >>> 1) revert all the improvements did to the local transport OR >> >>> 2) just remove the NonBlockingTransportListener class only? >> >>> If it is the first option, then we have to improve the local transport >> >>> in >> >>> such a way that a user should be able to extended the local transport >> >>> implementation and write a custom implementation. That will help us to >> >>> move >> >>> the Synapse specific local transport to Synapse itself. >> >>> If it is the second option, then we wont have to change that much of >> >>> code >> >>> level change. >> >>> Although we have discussed about local transport here, my original >> >>> question still remains ie. improving WSDL generation logic to support >> >>> WSDL >> >>> generation for serivces that is only exposed in local transport. >> >> >> >> Can you please test the given patch with the attached local transport >> >> sender. This should allow you to export the service with only local >> >> transport. >> >> >> >> It has hard coded the name local. but if you see this method same thing >> >> has done for http and https as well. >> > >> > I tested your patch and with the given patch, the local endpoints are >> > not >> > shown in the generated WSDL. I have created a jira [1] to track the >> > issue. >> > There were some test failures and I will fix them and attach the patch >> > to >> > the jira. >> > >> > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-5085 >> >> >> >> thanks, >> >> Amila. >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Andreas Veithen >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Since there is a consensus that NonBlockingLocalTransportSender >> >>>> doesn't work with a pure Axis2 setup, is not unit testable and is >> >>>> only >> >>>> relevant for Synapse, the logical conclusion would be that it should >> >>>> not be included in Axis2 but in Synapse. >> >>>> >> >>>> Andreas >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:43, Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Andreas Veithen >> >>>> > <[email protected]> >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:48, Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> >>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> > Hi Devs, >> >>>> >> > I am opening up this thread to discuss $subject. >> >>>> >> > Recently, I did some improvements [1] to the Axis2 local >> >>>> >> > transport, >> >>>> >> > inorder >> >>>> >> > to get it working against Synapse nhttp transport. Now the local >> >>>> >> > transport >> >>>> >> > is working fine against the nhttp transport. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> To me the statement "getting transport A working against transport >> >>>> >> B" >> >>>> >> doesn't make sense. Two distinct transports A and B never interact >> >>>> >> directly. Each of them interacts with the Axis2 engine through (in >> >>>> >> principle) well defined APIs. If a component (Synapse in this >> >>>> >> case) >> >>>> >> based on Axis2 has an issue when using A and B together, then >> >>>> >> either >> >>>> >> transport A, transport B, the component or the Axis2 engine has an >> >>>> >> issue (or multiple components have an issue), but saying that >> >>>> >> transport A needs to be fixed to work with transport B doesn't >> >>>> >> make >> >>>> >> sense and is an indication that the fundamental issue has not been >> >>>> >> identified properly. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> At this point, what we know is this: >> >>>> >> * NHTTP doesn't work as a transport sender in a standard Axis2 >> >>>> >> setup >> >>>> >> [1]. It only works in Synapse. That means that from the point of >> >>>> >> view >> >>>> >> of Axis2, the NHTTP transport is broken. That is of course OK, >> >>>> >> because >> >>>> >> NHTTP is shipped with Synapse and nobody claims that it is >> >>>> >> supported >> >>>> >> in a plain Axis2 setup. >> >>>> >> * At some point I tried to figure out what would need to be >> >>>> >> changed >> >>>> >> to >> >>>> >> make the NHTTP transport work in Axis2. IIRC the conclusion was >> >>>> >> that >> >>>> >> one can make it work in Axis2, but then it no longer works in >> >>>> >> Synapse. >> >>>> >> This would indicate that Synapse actually uses the transport API >> >>>> >> in a >> >>>> >> way it was not designed for. >> >>>> >> * As indicated in AXIS2-4944, the current version of >> >>>> >> NonBlockingLocalTransportSender doesn't work in Axis2. Unless >> >>>> >> somebody >> >>>> >> can come up with a valid unit test that exercises this piece of >> >>>> >> code, >> >>>> >> this would mean that we introduced a broken piece of code in Axis2 >> >>>> >> in >> >>>> >> order to work around another broken piece of code in a downstream >> >>>> >> project. That is of course not OK. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Note that the issue with NonBlockingLocalTransportSender is also >> >>>> >> blocking the review of other issues such as AXIS2-4991, because it >> >>>> >> is >> >>>> >> not possible to construct a unit test that validates (or >> >>>> >> invalidates) >> >>>> >> the proposed patch. That is BTW a general issue with the recent >> >>>> >> patches for the local transport. As far as I can tell, none of >> >>>> >> them >> >>>> >> added any new unit tests. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> [1] At least that was my conclusion when I last looked at it. I'm >> >>>> >> ready to retract that claim if somebody comes up with an example >> >>>> >> that >> >>>> >> shows how to set up a simple Axis2 client that uses NHTTP as >> >>>> >> outgoing >> >>>> >> transport. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > As Amila has pointed out earlier, NonBlockingLocalTransportSender >> >>>> > is >> >>>> > used to >> >>>> > talk to a proxy service from another proxy service. Since the nhttp >> >>>> > transport is written in a non blocking manner, >> >>>> > NonBlockingLocalTransport >> >>>> > will work seamlessly against nhttp transport. Since, we are using >> >>>> > this >> >>>> > TransportSender to talk between proxy services, it's difficult to >> >>>> > come >> >>>> > up >> >>>> > with a test case (test client) for this particular usecase. >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > Now, my requirement is to expose an Synapse Proxy Service only >> >>>> >> > in >> >>>> >> > local >> >>>> >> > transport. The reason behind is that, these proxy services which >> >>>> >> > are >> >>>> >> > exposed >> >>>> >> > only in local transport will be used by other proxy services and >> >>>> >> > will >> >>>> >> > not be >> >>>> >> > available for outside parties. Earlier, axis2 local transport >> >>>> >> > did >> >>>> >> > not >> >>>> >> > have a >> >>>> >> > TransportListener. >> >>>> >> > With a TransportListener >> >>>> >> > ==================== >> >>>> >> > I introduced [2] a TransportListener to the local transport. The >> >>>> >> > transport >> >>>> >> > listener's methods are used to calculate the endpoints for the >> >>>> >> > service >> >>>> >> > which >> >>>> >> > will be used in generating the WSDL for the service. Therefore, >> >>>> >> > now >> >>>> >> > if >> >>>> >> > the >> >>>> >> > service exposed in the local transport, the local endpoint is >> >>>> >> > also >> >>>> >> > shown >> >>>> >> > in >> >>>> >> > the WSDL. Although the local endpoints are shown in the WSDL, >> >>>> >> > outside >> >>>> >> > parties can not access the local endpoint. >> >>>> >> > The problem this patch introduce is, now the WSDL shows the >> >>>> >> > local >> >>>> >> > transport >> >>>> >> > endpoints. Which is wrong since external users can not access >> >>>> >> > local >> >>>> >> > transport. >> >>>> >> > So the solution is not to show the local transport endpoints in >> >>>> >> > generated >> >>>> >> > wsdl. For that we may have to change Axis2 code. >> >>>> >> > eg: As an example, I am attaching the following resources to >> >>>> >> > prove >> >>>> >> > my >> >>>> >> > point. >> >>>> >> > The synapse-config.xml is the Synapse Configuration and the >> >>>> >> > attached >> >>>> >> > WSDLs >> >>>> >> > are for the proxy servivces, LocalTransportProxy and >> >>>> >> > SecondProxy. >> >>>> >> > The >> >>>> >> > SecondProxy is exposed only via the local transport and the >> >>>> >> > local >> >>>> >> > endpoints >> >>>> >> > are shown in the WSDL which is wrong IMV. >> >>>> >> > Without a TransportListener >> >>>> >> > ====================== >> >>>> >> > If we did not have a LocalTransportListener and if a service is >> >>>> >> > exposed >> >>>> >> > through local transport only, the WSDL for the service will not >> >>>> >> > be >> >>>> >> > generated. The reason behind is that; inorder to generate the >> >>>> >> > WSDL, >> >>>> >> > there >> >>>> >> > should be a mechanism to derive the endpoints for the service. >> >>>> >> > Since, >> >>>> >> > the >> >>>> >> > TransportListener is not there, there is no mechanism to derive >> >>>> >> > the >> >>>> >> > endpoints for the service(which is only exposed through the >> >>>> >> > local >> >>>> >> > transport). >> >>>> >> > In case the service exposed through http,https,local transports; >> >>>> >> > this >> >>>> >> > wont >> >>>> >> > be the case. Then the WSDL will be generated and only the >> >>>> >> > http,https >> >>>> >> > endpoints will be shown. >> >>>> >> > Without the listener, if we expose a service only in local >> >>>> >> > transport, >> >>>> >> > WSDL >> >>>> >> > generation fails since the endpoints can not be derived for that >> >>>> >> > particular >> >>>> >> > service. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > Your ideas and feedback on $subject is much appreciated. >> >>>> >> > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-4944 >> >>>> >> > [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-5043 >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > -- >> >>>> >> > Regards, >> >>>> >> > Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > http://heshans.blogspot.com/ >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > -- >> >>>> > Regards, >> >>>> > Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> >>>> > >> >>>> > http://heshans.blogspot.com/ >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> >>> >> >>> http://heshans.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Amila Suriarachchi >> >> WSO2 Inc. >> >> blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > Heshan Suriyaarachchi >> > >> > http://heshans.blogspot.com/ >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > > -- > Amila Suriarachchi > WSO2 Inc. > blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
