axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doug Davis" <...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Life after service response?
Date Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:56:03 GMT
That's not the point of "undo".  I've now realized that "undo"
is just a bad choice for a name - perhaps something like
"handleFault" would be better.  All it's supposed to do it
give each handler that was invoke()'d a chance to do some
processing in the event of a fault - that's it.  If someone wants
to use it for some sort of transactional stuff that's up to them
Axis is just providing a framework from which people can do
whatever they want.  Please do not remove it - instead, if
you're looking for something to do you could work on the
fault processing logic - I believe it still needs to completed.  :-)
-Dug


Glyn Normington/UK/IBM@IBMGB on 12/13/2001 10:38:22 AM

Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org

To:   axis-dev@xml.apache.org
cc:
Subject:  Re: Life after service response?



I've been trying to understand the abstractions surrounding handlers and
the engine and cannot understand the basis for introducing undo(). I was
pleased to find that Sanjiva wrote:

>I'd like to see undo() taken out totally. The semantics of
>undo() in the context of chains of handlers is pretty flaky.

I think Axis should avoid getting into 'compensation management' which
starts to appear in embrionic form in
org.apache.axis.SimpleChain.doVisiting.

For example I suspect Axis does not want to get into 'recovery', but the
requirement for compensation after a system crash could easily arise from
handlers which deal with persistent state and which depend on undo to
perform properly.

I'll happily strip out undo if no-one else wants to.

Glyn





Mime
View raw message