Hi,
Vivek Pandey wrote:
> Arun Gupta wrote:
>> Vivek,
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, the typical "?" syntax is to augment the main URI with
>>>> name/value pairs which in this case is SOAP/HTTP. IMHO adding
>>>> SOAP/TCP binding does not relate well to this syntax as well.
>>> Ok. My main point was to have a URI that identifies SOAP with HTTP
>>> and TCP transport binding and corresponding ports. Its
>>> implementation specific and as long as we have consistent way to
>>> denote such multiple bindings I dont care how they look like.
>> I agree with that.
>>>> Why this information needs to be specified in WSIT config file ?
>>> Thats how it works now (<tcppolicy:TCPEnabled/> in wsit config). My
>>> proposal is that we dont need it if we use BindingType and a binding
>>> id to identify tcp with existing soap/http or just soap/tcp.
>> I'd like to understand why that approach is better instead of the
>> recommended binding id. Moreover, we'd like SOAP/TCP to work in
>> JAX-WS even without WSIT. If we introduce a dependency on
>> wsit-client.xml, then that how will that usecase be served ?
> Right. Anyway, I think if no one has any objection we should go for
> BindingType route. I would like to hear from Alexey and paul about
> what they think.
BindingType annotation was original and probably preffered way we wanted
to use, but were concenred that it could have just 1 binding
description. (just tcp, just http... and what if we need other
transports?), thats why then we decided to use policy to say that this
BindingType is also tcp enabled. Solution with policies looked more
scalable, as similar way we can support enableSMTP... enableWhatever and
dont depend on any existed binding.
Also seems Jitu mentioned that there is some spec proposal to use this
annotation BindingType with String[]... probably that is solution we
really need, but meanwhile have to have some "temporary"?
So as conclusion i think BindingType annotation is natural solution we
need to use (natural when it will support String[] of bindings), but
currently we can use either BindingType annotation with some tricky URIs
to say whether its tcp, http or both, or put that info to policies
(wsit.xml).
WBR,
Alexey.
>>
>>>> I tend to agree with the overall approach, we just need to refine
>>>> the syntax.
>>>>
>>> Yes. Basically we need 3 bindings ids, one for soap11+http+tcp,
>>> another for soap 12+http+tcp and the last one thats only soap over tcp.
>> I think we'll need 4:
>>
>> SOAP 1.1/HTTP + SOAP1.1/TCP
>> SOAP 1.2/HTTP + SOAP1.1/TCP
>> SOAP1.1/TCP
>> SOAP1.2/TCP
>>
> yep.
>
> -vivek.
>> -Arun
>>
>>>
>>> -vivek.
>>>> -Arun
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -vivek.
>>>>> [1]https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=40
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_wsit.dev.java.net
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_wsit.dev.java.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_wsit.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_wsit.dev.java.net
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_wsit.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_wsit.dev.java.net
>