[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-88?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12733342#action_12733342
]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-88:
-------------------------------------
Avantika,
This is great, I think we should get rid of the wsHttpBinding
anyways(STONEHENGE-58).
My vote is for #1.
My only concern is that if some new implementation comes in and has trouble
connecting to the existing basic/custom bindings what can they do? Although,
I'm not that concerned, because IMHO web services should be bound by the rule
that they can't modify the host. Otherwise every one-off binding would have to
be created on all the hosts to support edge-cases.
So, my vote is still for #1.
> Use SEC value to remove unnecessary bindings in .NET
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-88
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-88
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: Wish
> Reporter: Avantika Agrawal
> Priority: Minor
>
> It would be nice to use the SEC value from the database with a single custom
> binding (for all the different stacks), rather than have bindngs for each
> stack individually. This would make the code easier to follow, as well.
> There are several ways we could approach this problem:
> 1 - Have a basic and a sec binding in the App.config files and select between
> the two of these uses the boolean SEC value specified in the SERVICE table.
> This means that the implementations have to use only these bindings - no
> options
> 2 - Implementations can use whatever binding they want as long as its in the
> Config file. This means that the SEC value will be a string and it will be
> used to select between the different bindings. This allows for more than two
> bindings - there can be custom bindings for certain stacks, but this may
> introduce the same complexity that we currently have.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
