> > In a special case "replyTo" present and request transport,response > transport are same shouldn't we send response message only without > sending a ACK ?
Good question. IIRC, if the replyTo is there (not annon), then we need to send the reply on the reply to transport regardless of the incoming transport. But, I will double check before I implement (addressing spec). Thanks, Deepal > > 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 >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Deepal jayasinghe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe <[email protected]> >>>> 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: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > > -- > Sagara Gunathunga > > Blog - http://ssagara.blogspot.com > Web - http://people.apache.org/~sagara/ > LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssagara > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- http://blogs.deepal.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
