Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there's any way to make this work without defining a FI
>> specific property on a Packet like this.
>>
>> Wouldn't it better for the FI encoder or transport to keep
>> information? The content negotiation is a property of the endpoint,
>> not that of a packet, right?
>>
>
> Yes, i would like to do it differently. The problem, which i have
> mentioned previously in other emails, is the encoder facade. I have not
> had time to follow up on my promise to propose another solution yet :-(
>
> I wish i could pop over to Santa Clara and have a white board session on
> this with you :-)
>
> I think the conneg property would be directly associated with the HTTP
> transport pipe, and my plan was to manage the conneg state on this pipe.
>
One slight complication is if the endpoint address changes per
invocation, which i presume is possible. I forgot about this.
Ideally it would be best if the field was on EndpointAddress, but the
order of setting properties is not specified on the request context. So
it seems simpler to keep these two fields separate on the
RequestContext. (Plus i am not sure what the implications are when the
request context is in fallback mode.)
If the field was part of EndpointAddress it would solve the issue of
passing the relevant information to the encoder facade :-)
Paul.
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109