If you read the email thread, you will understand the initial issue I mentioned, for more information have a look at the JIRA issue.
Thanks, Deepal On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Amila Suriarachchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Deepal Jayasinghe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Amila Suriarachchi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 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. >> >> I agree, but two different scenario, in the long running case service >> author knows about it and he sets the parameter. In the two transport >> case, client does not aware of anything but he need to get the >> response using different transport. > > Do you say that when the client set the replyTo header and send a message, > he does not get the > reply to the address given in replyTo header? > > thanks, > Amila. > >> >> Thanks, >> Deepal >> > >> > 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/ >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/ > -- http://blogs.deepal.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
