On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe <deep...@gmail.com> wrote: > Amila, You might not remember the two transport functionality since > this was done a long time ago, and in fact those days you were > contributing the ADB and code generation. Actually, the long running > services idea was initially developed based on the two transport > semantics. > > The correct way to handle two transport or any request with replyTo > (not anonymous), is to send the ACK on the request transport and send > the reply through the reply to address. So, we had this feature and I > have used and demoed this feature a number of times in various > conferences.
In a special case "replyTo" present and request transport,response transport are same shouldn't we send response message only without sending a ACK ? Thanks ! > > I sent this email to mailing list to see whether someone has removed > the source code as part of some discussion, because I am sure I have > missed some long discussion after 2008. Now, it is sure that this > feature was not removed intentionally. So I will fix it correctly. > > With my academic work I hardly find time to go through the mailing > list and try to respond as much as I can. So going through commit > messages is not a practical solution for me (though I spent two hours > doing that). In fact I am not actively looking at Axis2 code base > since 2008, so it is hard for me to navigate all those changes. > > Thanks all of you for the actively participation, I will implement > this feature correctly (of course when I find a free time). > > Thanks, > Deepal > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Amila Suriarachchi > <amilasuriarach...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Deepal jayasinghe <deep...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe <deep...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> I looked and the code segment you mentioned, but that is to process >>>> >> long >>>> >> running services. We had somewhat similar code to process request >>>> >> comes with >>>> >> replyTo header. If no one has removed then, we can fix the issue in >>>> >> AMR. >>>> > >>>> > This is for processing addressing headers with replyTo header. >>>> I agree, but that is inside isAsync, so we need to have the parameter >>>> to come to this logic. >>> >>> yes you need to add this parameter DO_ASYNC = "messageReceiver. >>> invokeOnSeparateThread" to services.xml. >>> >>> Do you want to make this by default. Then what about the backward >>> compatibility :) >>> >>> Long running services and two transports non-blocking invocations are two >>> different things. So, we do not need to make DO_ASYN the default. However, I >>> am talking about the removal of an existing functionalities, so backward >>> compatibility is already broken. >> >> I am not sure about the functionality you talk about. Is it possible you to >> find the commit which has removed that functionality you talk about? >> >> thanks, >> Amila. >> >>> >>> Thanks., >>> Deepal >> >> >> >> -- >> Amila Suriarachchi >> WSO2 Inc. >> blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/ >> > > > > -- > http://blogs.deepal.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@axis.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@axis.apache.org > > -- Sagara Gunathunga Blog - http://ssagara.blogspot.com Web - http://people.apache.org/~sagara/ LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssagara --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@axis.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@axis.apache.org
