Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> I liked the following better:
>
> <service name="TestService">
> <port name="TestServicePort" binding="tns:TestServiceBinding">
> <soap:address
> location="tcp://localhost:5774/WSpex-tcp/TestService"/>
> </port>
> </service>
>
> I thought the above is enough to hook up the transport. Why is the
> additional policy declaration needed?
>
If a service supports both the HTTP transport and the TCP transport then
we wanted the the client to automatically select the most optimal and
appropriate transport without the developer having to make any changes
to their code. (same for FI, when clients and services know each others
capabilities they can automatically, when configured to do so, choose
the optimal route.)
The two port model (two ports, one using TCP and one using HTTP, with
the same port type) makes this tricky to do given the current JAX-WS
client API (it is possible but i felt we would not be conforming to the
JSR i.e. returning a port that is not the one requested).
We definitely would like to go the route of the two port model in the
future for WSIT if the JAX-WS client APIs can be massaged or interpreted
creatively :-)
IIRC the two port model can be supported now, and that could be the
approach for none WSIT use.
Paul.
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109