On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe <[email protected]> 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. > This is exactly what happens when you set that parameter and when the server receives an message with replyTo header. thanks, Amila. > > 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] > > -- Amila Suriarachchi WSO2 Inc. blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
