axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Deepal Jayasinghe <deep...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Non blocking with two channel is broken
Date Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:48:44 GMT
If you read the email thread, you will understand the initial issue I
mentioned, for more information have a look at the JIRA issue.

Thanks,
Deepal

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Amila Suriarachchi
<amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Deepal Jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Amila Suriarachchi
>> <amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Amila, You might not remember the two transport functionality since
>> >> this was done a long time ago, and in fact those days you were
>> >> contributing the ADB and code generation. Actually, the long running
>> >> services idea was initially developed based on the two transport
>> >> semantics.
>> >>
>> >> The correct way to handle two transport or any request with replyTo
>> >> (not anonymous), is to send the ACK on the request transport and send
>> >> the reply through the reply to address. So, we had this feature and I
>> >> have used and demoed this feature a number of times in various
>> >> conferences.
>> >
>> > This is exactly what happens when you set that parameter and when the
>> > server
>> > receives an message with replyTo header.
>>
>> I agree, but two different scenario, in the long running case service
>> author knows about it and he sets the parameter. In the two transport
>> case, client does not aware of anything but he need to get the
>> response using different transport.
>
> Do you say that when the client set the replyTo header and send a message,
> he does not get the
> reply to the address given in replyTo header?
>
> thanks,
> Amila.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Deepal
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Amila.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I sent this email to mailing list to see whether someone has removed
>> >> the source code as part of some discussion, because I am sure I have
>> >> missed some long discussion after 2008. Now, it is sure that this
>> >> feature was not removed intentionally. So I will fix it correctly.
>> >>
>> >> With my academic work I hardly find time to go through the mailing
>> >> list and try to respond as much as I can. So going through commit
>> >> messages is not a practical solution for me (though I spent two hours
>> >> doing that). In fact I am not actively looking at Axis2 code base
>> >> since 2008, so it is hard for me to navigate all those changes.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks all of you for the actively participation, I will implement
>> >> this feature correctly (of course when I find a free time).
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Deepal
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
>> >> <amilasuriarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Deepal Jayasinghe
>> >> >> <deepalk@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> I looked and the code segment you mentioned, but that
is to
>> >> >>> >> process
>> >> >>> >> long
>> >> >>> >> running services. We had somewhat similar code to
process
>> >> >>> >> request
>> >> >>> >> comes with
>> >> >>> >> replyTo header. If no one has removed then, we can
fix the issue
>> >> >>> >> in
>> >> >>> >> AMR.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > This is for processing addressing headers with replyTo
header.
>> >> >>> I agree, but that is inside isAsync, so we need to have the
>> >> >>> parameter
>> >> >>> to come to this logic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> yes you need to add this parameter DO_ASYNC = "messageReceiver.
>> >> >> invokeOnSeparateThread"  to services.xml.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you want to make this by default. Then what about the backward
>> >> >> compatibility :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Long running services and two transports non-blocking invocations
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> two
>> >> >> different things. So, we do not need to make DO_ASYN the default.
>> >> >> However, I
>> >> >> am talking about the removal of an existing functionalities, so
>> >> >> backward
>> >> >> compatibility is already broken.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am not sure about the functionality you talk about. Is it possible
>> >> > you
>> >> > to
>> >> > find the commit which has removed that functionality you talk about?
>> >> >
>> >> > thanks,
>> >> > Amila.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.,
>> >> >> Deepal
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Amila Suriarachchi
>> >> > WSO2 Inc.
>> >> > blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://blogs.deepal.org
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@axis.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@axis.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Amila Suriarachchi
>> > WSO2 Inc.
>> > blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://blogs.deepal.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@axis.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@axis.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Amila Suriarachchi
> WSO2 Inc.
> blog: http://amilachinthaka.blogspot.com/
>



-- 
http://blogs.deepal.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@axis.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@axis.apache.org


Mime
View raw message