axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aleksander Slominski <>
Subject [Axis2] IRC chat log 2004-11-24
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:27:57 GMT
we have talked more about MTOM/XOP and how to make OM more
data-binding friendly.

next chat:
December 01, 2004 10pm EST *on* WEDNESDAY (That's 9am Thu in SriLanka)
update agenda for next week in


[11/24/2004 8:52 AM] <Deepal> hi all
[11/24/2004 8:54 AM] <Srinath_> everybody is earliy :)
[11/24/2004 8:54 AM] <Harsha> Hi Deepal & the rest
[11/24/2004 8:55 AM] <Ajith> hello all
[11/24/2004 8:55 AM] <Deepal> BTW what is today agenda
[11/24/2004 8:58 AM] <Jaliya> Hi All
[11/24/2004 8:58 AM] -->| Chinthaka (~EC@ has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:00 AM] <alek_s> hi everybody
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Harsha> Ajith & Srinath, Thanks for the help. Hope I am not
hassling you guys.
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Chinthaka> hi all
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Ajith> hi alek
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <alek_s> i think agenda is very undefined
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Ajith> harsha : nope
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <alek_s> hi Chintaka
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Jaliya> Hi Alek
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <dasarath> Hi all
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <Chinthaka> hi alek
[11/24/2004 9:01 AM] <alek_s> hi Jaliya
[11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <Chinthaka> yeah, agenda is not well defined
[11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <gdaniels> So let's pick something, then!
[11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <alek_s> i have just droppeed two items seems possible topics in
[11/24/2004 9:02 AM] <gdaniels> We could talk about turkey recipes :)
[11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Ajith> :)
[11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Jaliya> Shall we discuss what will be the client side API
[11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Srinath_> I love we can taste that as well !
[11/24/2004 9:03 AM] <Chinthaka> recipes ? :D
[11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <dasarath> gdaniels likes turkey!!!
[11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Chinthaka> :)
[11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya: We could do that, but we might want to continue
tying up the 
loose threads we've got about engine/handlers and OM/MTOM...
[11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Ajith> yeah that is a good idea
[11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Jaliya> Ok, sure, We will finish it first
[11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Turkey's one of my favorites :)
[11/24/2004 9:04 AM] <Srinath_> glen herd you organizing a dinner :)
[11/24/2004 9:05 AM] <Ajith> we can clear up some of the probs we have
[11/24/2004 9:05 AM] <alek_s> Turkey gravy caan be good or very good ...
[11/24/2004 9:05 AM] <gdaniels> Srinath: Yup, wanna come? :)
[11/24/2004 9:06 AM] <gdaniels> OK, so engine or OM, folks?  I vote OM first.
[11/24/2004 9:06 AM] -->| chathura (~chathurah@ has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:07 AM] <chathura> Hi all
[11/24/2004 9:08 AM] <alek_s> i am OK either way
[11/24/2004 9:08 AM] <gdaniels> (Don't all vote at once now :))
[11/24/2004 9:10 AM] <--| chathura has left #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:10 AM] -->| chathura (~chathurah@ has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:10 AM] <gdaniels> okay then, how about OM....
[11/24/2004 9:11 AM] <gdaniels> It seemed people in general were heading in similar
directions with 
MTOM stuff, with a few differences
[11/24/2004 9:11 AM] <gdaniels> The reason I'd put the "content" object in the OMElement
was to allow 
for not only MTOM, but also data binding, to occur.
[11/24/2004 9:12 AM] |<-- Deepal has left (Read error: 104 (Connection
reset by peer))
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <gdaniels> If this was a separate binary-content node, that could
work too, but in 
the data-binding case it would be a little weird since you'd have one node potentially affecting
attribute set of its parent node.
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Ajith> oops a daisy we had a sudden "link blackout"
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] -->| Deepal (~deepal@ has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Deepal> hi all
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Ah, I was wondering if something like that had
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Deepal> we had a problem on our adsl link
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <gdaniels> You all were unusually quiet. :)
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <dasarath> lets have a quick recap
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Ajith> Chinthaka and jaliya are still out i guess
[11/24/2004 9:13 AM] <Deepal> can we pls send us wt did u discuss
[11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> I asked "om or engine", and I voted om, and Alek said
he didn't care, 
so I started talking about om
[11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <Ajith> at least to know where we are headed
[11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <Ajith> ik
[11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> <gdaniels> It seemed people in general were heading
in similar 
directions with MTOM stuff, with a few differences
[11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> <gdaniels> The reason I'd put the "content" object
in the OMElement was 
to allow for not only MTOM, but also data binding, to occur.
[11/24/2004 9:14 AM] <gdaniels> <gdaniels> If this was a separate binary-content
node, that could work 
too, but in the data-binding case it would be a little weird since you'd have one node potentially

affecting the attribute set of its parent node.
[11/24/2004 9:15 AM] <Ajith> so glen, Why wouldn't you put it as a "binary node" or
[11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> Well, first of all because it's not binary. :)
[11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> I want to support regular beans which map to/from XML
[11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <Deepal> then wt is it ?
[11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <Deepal> is it base64 ?
[11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> and I think the mechanism can be shared
[11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <gdaniels> no
[11/24/2004 9:16 AM] <Ajith> at the OM level?
[11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> The objects can live at the OM level, yes
[11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> The serialization framework is separate though
[11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> I want to be able to say:
[11/24/2004 9:17 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement el = new OMElement(qname, object)
[11/24/2004 9:18 AM] <gdaniels> omWriter.write(el) (or whatever syntax we use)
[11/24/2004 9:18 AM] <gdaniels> The reason I think this fits is because it's good for
both MTOM 
optimizations and data binding.
[11/24/2004 9:18 AM] <gdaniels> Both of which we know we want to support
[11/24/2004 9:19 AM] -->| EC_ (~EC@ has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <EC_> hi
[11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <gdaniels> did we lose Sri Lanka again?
[11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <chathura> and when we access this perticular element area as pull
stream we do what?
[11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <EC_> am I in ?
[11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <chathura> me too
[11/24/2004 9:19 AM] <dasarath> we are here
[11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <Ajith> EC : yeah you are :)
[11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <EC_> :)
[11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: The system would serialize the object and
provide the pull events
[11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <chathura> do we push object to OM in tht case right
[11/24/2004 9:20 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: right
[11/24/2004 9:20 AM] -->| Jaliya5712 (~Miranda@ has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <EC_> can someone please paste the chat so far in to my yahoo chat
I've lost a lot :(
[11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <chathura> and if the object doenst get pushed before serialisation
does the 
serialiser get the object reference
[11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <Jaliya5712> I also want a copy
[11/24/2004 9:21 AM] <dasarath> what are the pull events for a binary node?
[11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: Which kind of "serialization" do you mean?
 Writing the 
Object to OM, or writing the XML to a stream?
[11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <dasarath> is there anything like TEXT in the case of the text
event for binary 
data as well?
[11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <chathura> om to xml
[11/24/2004 9:22 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: The same as the pull events for either the
base64 content or 
[11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <dasarath> I was getting at how to pass the binary data to the
application through 
pull events?
[11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <gdaniels> chathura: When we want to write out the XML text, the
Object would need 
to get serialized by the data binding system (via a SerializationContext)
[11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <EC_> but glen : u have put binary data inside the parent element
[11/24/2004 9:23 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: I'm not sure what you mean exactly - can you
give a 
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] |<-- Chinthaka has left (Read error: 110 (Connection
timed out))
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] |<-- Jaliya has left (Read error: 110 (Connection
timed out))
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <EC_> hi
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <Ajith> glen :  that is what is not clear to me. are we "burning"
some kind of 
serilaisation into OM?
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: No, just the framework for it.
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <dasarath> if its serialized as base64 the pull events are straight
meaning its another text event
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <alek_s> i have posted current chat to
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <chathura> basically asking is ther a method called omElement.getObject()
for the 
seriliser in the Om to XML case?????
[11/24/2004 9:24 AM] <EC_> thankx alek :)
[11/24/2004 9:25 AM] <Jaliya5712> Thanks alek
[11/24/2004 9:25 AM] <Ajith> glen :  then we are framed to that particular serlising
[11/24/2004 9:25 AM] <Ajith> say OM to Text
[11/24/2004 9:26 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: The "serializing method" is just handing off
responsibility to a 
SerializationContext - that's pretty abstract.
[11/24/2004 9:26 AM] <alek_s> Glen: i do not like that you havce a special treatment
for DataHandler  - 
user can not decide how DataHandler content should be serialized as it is speciall in 
[11/24/2004 9:27 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Yeah, I was just whipping off a quick sketch,
but wanted to 
distinguish MTOM stuff from data binding stuff somehow.  Other suggestions?
[11/24/2004 9:27 AM] <alek_s> why not have something like marker interface that elements
can implement 
if they want their own serialization?
[11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: You mean specializing OMElements?
[11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <Ajith> this is my view : we have the object model seperately and

serliasers/builders are things that interact with the OM by given interfaces
[11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <Ajith> so what ever the serialiser depends on the interface we
give (such as pull)
[11/24/2004 9:28 AM] <alek_s> so if XopInclude includes this interface it will ask seialize
write/serializeBinary() itself
[11/24/2004 9:29 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: So how do I associate object/binary content with
the XML then?
[11/24/2004 9:29 AM] |<-- FR^2 has left (Read error: 60 (Operation timed
[11/24/2004 9:29 AM] =-= EC_ is now known as Chinthaka
[11/24/2004 9:29 AM] <alek_s> class XopInclude extends OMElementImpl implements XmlSerializable
[11/24/2004 9:29 AM] <Ajith> we have a MTOM writer inside the seriliser that will generate
the correct 
serlisation depending on the node
[11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <Chinthaka> why XOPInclude extends Element ?
[11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <Ajith> with the assumption that we have a binaryNode in OM
[11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Where does the object content live though?
[11/24/2004 9:30 AM] <Chinthaka> isn't it just extend OMText ?
[11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <alek_s> XopInclude *is* XML Infoset Element Infotmation Item (eii)
[11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <Ajith> why, we have a node that specifically carries binaryContent
at OM level
[11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: So also class ObjElement extends OMElement implements

[11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <alek_s> example: <xop:Include xmlns:xop=''

[11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: What about data binding?
[11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <alek_s> Glen: yes - that is what i was thinking
[11/24/2004 9:31 AM] <Ajith> hmmmm
[11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: The <xop:Include> never actually appears
in the infoset though
[11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <Chinthaka> alek : what I meant was content of XOPInclude
[11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <gdaniels> The infoset has the actual binary in it, and <xop:Include>
is purely a 
serialization optimization
[11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <alek_s> XopInclude is in XOP Infoset
[11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <Ajith> I was thinking of data binding by a given pull interface
[11/24/2004 9:32 AM] <alek_s> and XOP iNfoset is just transformation of XML Infoset
[11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <dasarath> XopInclude is in XOP Infoset?
[11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <Ajith> But we can bind a binary content to a given java object
[11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <Ajith> Is it?
[11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <alek_s> i think OM represent XML Infoset in different stages of
[11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: See, I want to support building an XML tree that
has Objects 
hanging off it at certain points, but not others.  I also want to support deserializing a
place in the XML to Object and caching the result.
[11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <alek_s> including case when we have Java objects that will be
later transfromed 
to XML Infoset
[11/24/2004 9:33 AM] <Ajith> hmmmm
[11/24/2004 9:34 AM] <Ajith> Now i see your point
[11/24/2004 9:34 AM] <alek_s> Glen: i agree completely!
[11/24/2004 9:34 AM] -->| _chris_ ( has joined
[11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: +1 to different stages of transformation, but
I don't think the 
<xop:Include> should ever appear in the OM model itself...?
[11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <Ajith> but wont this "stored object" corrupt our nice architecture
[11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: I don't know. :)  I hope not.
[11/24/2004 9:35 AM] <gdaniels> The only problem I can see with it is if you've got
different data 
binding frameworks working on the same piece of XML (and therefore using different mappings)
[11/24/2004 9:36 AM] <gdaniels> I think that's going to be pretty rare
[11/24/2004 9:36 AM] <Ajith> glen : this is what we had in mind
[11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <Ajith> we expose a pull event stream from Om so that by converting
it into sax we 
can use any data binding tool
[11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> I'd like to try it anyway, and see what it looks/feels
like.  If we can 
get it right, I imagine the API being *really* useful/easy for Java/XML programming.
[11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <Ajith> such as XMLbeans that use a sax interface
[11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Now you're talking about deserializing
[11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> That sounds fine.
[11/24/2004 9:37 AM] <gdaniels> I definitely want to support what you just said.
[11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <Ajith> hmmm
[11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <gdaniels> But also I'd like to have a getObjectValue() (or whatever)
API which 
uses a configured data binding framework to do that work for you IF one has been configured
[11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <Chinthaka> OM -> StAX --> SAX --> databinding
[11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <alek_s> glen: XopInclude for me is very similair to hanging Java
Objects in XML 
tree - something that is not in XML Infoset but can be tranformed to infoset (for XopInclude
--> BASE64)
[11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <Chinthaka> databinding --> SAX --> OM
[11/24/2004 9:38 AM] <gdaniels> The nice thing about that API is that you can use it
BOTH for getting 
MTOM content and for getting Java databinding content
[11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <Ajith> Glen :  what I am little bit worried is burning in an "object"
inside OM
[11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Yes, except that data binding can also affect
whereas binary content cannot.
[11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <alek_s> getObjectValue(ctx <list of data-bindings>)
[11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: I understand the concern.
[11/24/2004 9:39 AM] -->| FR^2 ( has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 9:39 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: But essentially we're doing that with XmlBinary/XopInclude
aren't we?
[11/24/2004 9:40 AM] <alek_s> glen: during data-binding it should be possible to create
any XML Infoset ...
[11/24/2004 9:40 AM] <Ajith> yeah : what I had in mind is we store it in a generic "binary
[11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> ok
[11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> here's a use case
[11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> let me show you what I want to do for serializing
[11/24/2004 9:41 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement container = new OMElement("root");
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement child1 = new OMElement("child");
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> child1.setObjectContent(book1);
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> OMElement child2 = new OMElement("child");
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> child2.setObjectContent(book2);
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> container.addChild(child1);
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> container.addChild(child2);
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> omWriter.write(container);
[11/24/2004 9:42 AM] <gdaniels> <end>
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> Is that reasonable to want?
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <dasarath> that's OK but
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <alek_s> all good except for last line
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <Ajith> hmmmm , that seems quite a "developer friendly" piece of
code :)
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <dasarath> we stayed away from that so far right?
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <alek_s> i think writer should be configured with data bindings
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: Darned right!
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> :)
[11/24/2004 9:43 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Yes, I was assuming that had already happened
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> also i would not store "object content" in OMElement as
a special content
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> but just as any other child
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <gdaniels> OMWriter omWriter = new OMWriter(outstream, dataBindingContext)
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: but it is special, alas.
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> child1.addChild(content)
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: in particular, it can serialize attributes
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <Ajith> glen :  how is this bool object serialised ?
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <alek_s> why is it special? content will be transformed to XML
Infoset during writing
[11/24/2004 9:44 AM] <Ajith> I mean where is it configured
[11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: So making it a child would break the model of
[11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <alek_s> so it should be treated as potential XML Infoset
[11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <alek_s> assumed XML Infoset until found guilty (exception)
[11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: which bool object?
[11/24/2004 9:45 AM] <alek_s> brb
[11/24/2004 9:47 AM] <gdaniels> Here's the thing.  I want Axis (and OM in particular)
to be as 
"developer friendly" as possible.  Otherwise what's the point?
[11/24/2004 9:47 AM] <gdaniels> We know we want to support MTOM anyway.
[11/24/2004 9:47 AM] <gdaniels> So it seems to me like there's a lot of potential overlap
reading/writing binary objects (Image, byte[], etc) and reading/writing data-bound objects
[11/24/2004 9:48 AM] <gdaniels> If we can make a single structure/framework/API work
for both, that 
seems like it would be really cool.  If not, no problem, but I want to explore it fully.
[11/24/2004 9:49 AM] <alek_s> back
[11/24/2004 9:50 AM] <alek_s> glen: i agree with it 110%
[11/24/2004 9:50 AM] <gdaniels> I wonder if we lost Sri Lanka again...or if they're
just meditating. :)
[11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <Chinthaka> meditating ???
[11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <Jaliya5712> No conected
[11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <chathura> hmmm
[11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <dasarath> not at all
[11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <alek_s> i jave just posted update dlog to wiki
[11/24/2004 9:51 AM] <alek_s> just in case
[11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <alek_s>
[11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <gdaniels> So Alek and I seem to be on the same page on this general
idea... others?
[11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <Jaliya5712> So we will support binary object representation on
OM althouhg it is 
not in the infoset?
[11/24/2004 9:52 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya5712: ??
[11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <Jaliya5712> It is me, Jaliya
[11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <Srinath_> hi sorry for trouble if somebody know can someone let
me know how to 
revert a commit (I seem to have mess up ws-site and need to revert))
[11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <dasarath> are we not over engineering here?
[11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <Ajith> glen : sorry had to take a call , I meant the "book" object
[11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya: I know it's you - I didn't understand what you
were asking :)
[11/24/2004 9:53 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: I don't think so yet, no.
[11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <Jaliya5712> Are we going to inclued binary node to OM?
[11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: This seems pretty easy to build to me so far.
[11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <dasarath> I may be wrong but this is what I understood, say if
u want to send a 
Boolean object
[11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <dasarath> as the return type
[11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <gdaniels> Jaliya: That's what we're discussing...
[11/24/2004 9:54 AM] <dasarath> u directly attach it to the OM
[11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> i very much like implicity of this
[11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <dasarath> but that can be done without this feature as well
[11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> it makes working with XML Infoset simple and allows multiple
[11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> when final "pure" XML Infoset is built in stages
[11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Yes, you could always use an external data
binding system
[11/24/2004 9:55 AM] <alek_s> (s)implicity
[11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <Jaliya5712> Alek:Yes
[11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> my concern is
[11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> why not leave the data binding stuff to the external
[11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> data binding systems
[11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Because we need to do MTOM, right?
[11/24/2004 9:56 AM] <dasarath> and let OM expose a minimal interface for them to ride
on top of OM
[11/24/2004 9:57 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: If we're doing MTOM and actually optimizing
(i.e. NOT writing 
the whole object to base64 in all cases), we need someplace to put java.awt.Images or DataHandlers.
[11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <Jaliya5712> If we have custom nodes in OM then can we let some
other code to do 
the databinng?
[11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: So Alek and I are suggesting that since we
need that anyway, 
and the semantics are very similar to that of data binding, why not use a single mechanism?
[11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <Jaliya5712> So it shoule also be included, I think
[11/24/2004 9:58 AM] <Jaliya5712> in OM
[11/24/2004 9:59 AM] <dasarath> can't we get around the MTOM case in a much simpler
if we do not 
consider this
[11/24/2004 9:59 AM] <gdaniels> No one is suggesting that you should not be able to
plug-and-play your 
actual data binding frameworks like Castor, XmlBeans, etc....
[11/24/2004 10:00 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: I'm not sure.  How would you MTOM-encode
a java.awt.Image?
[11/24/2004 10:00 AM] <alek_s> i have been around topic of serialization and deserialization
for years
[11/24/2004 10:00 AM] <dasarath> for OM it will be a binary data stream
[11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <alek_s> building it on top of SAX and DOM was painful and sometimes
very complicated
[11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: What does it look like for the programmer,
I mean?
[11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <alek_s> we have chnace now to "custom fit" OM to what we need
[11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <Ajith> glen : bTW if we binarize an AWT image how can .net recreate
[11/24/2004 10:01 AM] <gdaniels> alek: +1 (but you knew that :))
[11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: You serialize it using MTOM as a MIME "image/jpg"
[11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <alek_s> i would have wrapper object (such as XopInclude) that
would be 
serialized with mime type image/png
[11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <Ajith> glen : aah
[11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <gdaniels> There's nothing JavaCentric there, Ajith
[11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <gdaniels> png, jpg, whatever :)
[11/24/2004 10:02 AM] <alek_s> i think pretty much everybyd will suport MTOM including
foremost Microsoft
[11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <Ajith> i get it , so you want to transfer items like image objects
into specific 
media types in transport
[11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <dasarath> when deserializing are we creating different binary
objects like awt.Image
[11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <gdaniels> yes yes
[11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <gdaniels> in particular, images, byte arrays, and XML documents
can be optimized 
that way
[11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <dasarath> in OM
[11/24/2004 10:03 AM] <Ajith> ok I get it
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <dasarath> say OMElement.getObjectValue->returns an awt.Image
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: Well they go somewhere. :)  We're deciding
how and where.
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <Ajith> but the prob is having this non Om object hanging around
with the Om!
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: that's exactly what I want to see, yes.
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> Ajith: We could easily have options which control whether
to cache it 
or not.
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <alek_s> that is what i have in mind too
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <dasarath> but don't u think that's too much to ask from OM
[11/24/2004 10:04 AM] <gdaniels> We want OM to be "tunable" for given use cases
[11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: No, absolutely not.
[11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <gdaniels> Remember - you're not asking OM to do ALL the work,
OM also works with 
a data binding framework.
[11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <dasarath> but
[11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <dasarath> this implies that
[11/24/2004 10:05 AM] <gdaniels> OM also works with a XOP/MTOM "framework" which is
just the 
DataHandler/activation framework in Java
[11/24/2004 10:06 AM] -->| Essington (~Essington@essington.user) has joined #apache-axis
[11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <Ajith> glen :  you have a very attractive point there but I am
not sure whether 
that is ok!
[11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <dasarath> data binding stuff is working before the method getObjectValue
[11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <dasarath> meaning data-binding is not on top of OM but IN it
[11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <alek_s> glen: i think MTOM should be more generic than "just
[11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <gdaniels> alek_s: Sure
[11/24/2004 10:06 AM] <gdaniels> dasarath: It's accessible THROUGH OM, but not INSIDE
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> Guys, I have to run unfortunately...
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <dasarath> but now OM has to be aware of this data binding
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> got another meeting coming up
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <dasarath> k
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> I'll read rest of log, and pls continue conversation
on email
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <dasarath> we'll go for a prototype as see
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <alek_s> i will be commiting to SVN my MTOM "toy" coe
[11/24/2004 10:07 AM] <gdaniels> bye for now all!
[11/24/2004 10:08 AM] <dasarath> bye glen
[11/24/2004 10:08 AM] |<-- gdaniels has left ()
[11/24/2004 10:08 AM] <alek_s> code should be in general similiar to Glen but more support
for XML 
Infoset transformations
[11/24/2004 10:09 AM] <alek_s> want to call today chat finished?
[11/24/2004 10:09 AM] <dasarath> yes why not
[11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <dasarath> its 9.00
[11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <alek_s> no it is 10.10 :)
[11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <dasarath> ;)
[11/24/2004 10:10 AM] <chathura> :d

View raw message