From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Fri Sep 01 15:13:43 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 35335 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2006 15:13:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2006 15:13:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 31378 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2006 15:13:31 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 31312 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2006 15:13:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 31250 invoked by uid 99); 1 Sep 2006 15:13:30 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:13:30 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:13:27 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so1009627uge for <rcantu@example.net>; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:13:05 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=p/yRe0aq12cylzbLvBjoARcypb0HeWbBRclrz4FffzCnBR0nLD5jlzXQi/F9xcKuRutsbVRVaYRX5YXcaEkXfaNpryKFN/kFFVRUghGTSlXWAvwuWEmRq9fo34vng6cDwioP1hgAC/yY3226mpSlcYojo4eh8eYp1/sTNjcZ+tY= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id w14mr547614qbm; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:13:04 -0600 From: "Bruce Snyder" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net, rcantu@example.net Subject: Changing the name of the ServiceMix project at the Codehaus MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ServiceMix was moved from the Codehaus to the ASF late in 2005. This involved leaving behind some modules that are not compatible with the Apache License so we decided to just leave the project that housed ServiceMix at the Codehaus in place to continue to house these modules. However, it has become rather confusing for people to understand the distinction between these two project spaces (one at the ASF and one at the Codehaus) and it's high time that we decided to change the name of the ServiceMix project that remains at the Codehaus. Therefore, I propose that we select a new name for this project. If others are interested let's begin to discuss names. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Fri Sep 01 15:30:59 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 41190 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2006 15:30:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2006 15:30:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 62926 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2006 15:30:58 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 62906 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2006 15:30:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 62897 invoked by uid 99); 1 Sep 2006 15:30:58 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:30:58 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:30:57 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c29so712559nfb for <rcantu@example.net>; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:30:36 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=T91bgm22wCPnhVGH3rVQLypFqTF6qULDMwKMDCb9ehAFlifIJ72gsWYHVpZkLm8mhmdqBtS81aH+pg4oiB5UXL2PDVt4+J4OkK1Lj+uT00RSy4gGXohD0xeQiW2WiK0qWyg2t6K6/lR4L5MC04ZSdXsMcOdm9uz8v9rlWYVyEX0= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id g3mr3099913nfj; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:30:35 +0200 From: "Guillaume Nodet" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: Changing the name of the ServiceMix project at the Codehaus In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_75370_7934354.1157124635762" References: <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_75370_7934354.1157124635762 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Good idea. This is really needed, and we have to shutdown the old ServiceMix conluence site asap. I have no real ideas for the name yet, but the current groupId for the jboss-deployer is org.codehaus.smxext On 9/1/06, Bruce Snyder <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > ServiceMix was moved from the Codehaus to the ASF late in 2005. This > involved leaving behind some modules that are not compatible with the > Apache License so we decided to just leave the project that housed > ServiceMix at the Codehaus in place to continue to house these > modules. However, it has become rather confusing for people to > understand the distinction between these two project spaces (one at > the ASF and one at the Codehaus) and it's high time that we decided to > change the name of the ServiceMix project that remains at the > Codehaus. Therefore, I propose that we select a new name for this > project. If others are interested let's begin to discuss names. > > Bruce > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > );' > > Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ > Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ > Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ > Castor - http://castor.org/ > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------=_Part_75370_7934354.1157124635762-- From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Fri Sep 01 15:36:07 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 44211 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2006 15:36:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2006 15:36:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 69142 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2006 15:36:05 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 68982 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2006 15:36:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 68973 invoked by uid 99); 1 Sep 2006 15:36:04 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:36:04 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:36:04 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 58so471592wri for <rcantu@example.net>; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:35:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=loFCDBrO9Peo1x8WajsF94qnBv/qS/tnYrTiOTDjQmvht1Qqa+OLlKmaLUdhYAgL1v/l1lL39GTTBu74MpTYOe9f3Drk8nR5U2LNbuDdoYRJU/3DA9TIeSK0UnXU85cp+ncsTW/biRuo+FUGxgm5h4UtjFdEGBlcB6HTpjIt4jA= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id e18mr612402agc; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:35:42 -0400 From: "Philip Dodds" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: Changing the name of the ServiceMix project at the Codehaus In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I agree that the old site only adds to the confusion - maybe ServiceMix Extensions is the way to go? P On 9/1/06, Guillaume Nodet <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > Good idea. This is really needed, and we have to shutdown the > old ServiceMix conluence site asap. > I have no real ideas for the name yet, but the current groupId > for the jboss-deployer is > org.codehaus.smxext > > > On 9/1/06, Bruce Snyder <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > > > ServiceMix was moved from the Codehaus to the ASF late in 2005. This > > involved leaving behind some modules that are not compatible with the > > Apache License so we decided to just leave the project that housed > > ServiceMix at the Codehaus in place to continue to house these > > modules. However, it has become rather confusing for people to > > understand the distinction between these two project spaces (one at > > the ASF and one at the Codehaus) and it's high time that we decided to > > change the name of the ServiceMix project that remains at the > > Codehaus. Therefore, I propose that we select a new name for this > > project. If others are interested let's begin to discuss names. > > > > Bruce > > -- > > perl -e 'print > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > > );' > > > > Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ > > Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ > > Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ > > Castor - http://castor.org/ > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > > From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Mon Sep 04 12:22:13 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 47464 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2006 12:22:09 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2006 12:22:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 70881 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 12:22:09 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 70711 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 12:22:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 70702 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2006 12:22:08 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 05:22:08 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO talk.nabble.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 05:22:08 -0700 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (helo=jubjub.nabble.com) by talk.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GKDSV-0001Af-In for rcantu@example.net; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 05:21:47 -0700 Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 05:21:47 -0700 (PDT) From: emicalc <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: messages monitoring MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: rcantu@example.net X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello, I would like to know if in servicemix there is a mechanism to monitoring the exchange of message between the components. Thank you -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/messages-monitoring-tf2214901.html#a6134658 Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev rcantu@example.net. From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Mon Sep 04 13:03:54 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 57974 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2006 13:03:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2006 13:03:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 31054 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 13:03:49 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 31036 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 13:03:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 31027 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2006 13:03:49 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:03:49 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO talk.nabble.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:03:48 -0700 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (helo=jubjub.nabble.com) by talk.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GKE6p-0002ab-UD for rcantu@example.net; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:03:27 -0700 Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 06:03:26 -0700 (PDT) From: kokkolo <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Synchronous message (over Drools) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: rcantu@example.net X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello, I just started using SeviceMix and I hope you'll be able to help me on this. I would like to have the following schema: A---->B(drools)---->C (do some job) A<----B(drools)<----C There are three components: Component A sends a message to B (drools component) that decides where to send it further (e.g. to C component). C component fetches some data, do a calculation and returns result as a message, Now I would like that component A bliocks until it gets reply from copmponent C. If I use deliveryChannel.sendSync(message) it unblocks as soon as B gets the message. Is there any pattern to solve this problem? Thanks, Frane. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Synchronous-message-%28over-Drools%29-tf2215088.html#a6135214 Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev rcantu@example.net. From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Mon Sep 04 13:36:51 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 72106 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2006 13:36:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2006 13:36:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 75951 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 13:36:50 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 75784 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 13:36:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 75775 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2006 13:36:50 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:36:50 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:36:49 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n29so1208382nfc for <rcantu@example.net>; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:36:27 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HwavCyhzJSGJSc4ysR4QO/LAwZ0yavZ2ZLp2PJqAp7EBSjO/U5KT7aG0MVZp5f3EsmZz9Aw8PHkLna9CjlKMEs5ZKopprdiC2/w+moKtz2fb4ya3gAUbWfFcbOjcn6ybqmhXCG4mEZWSd0SaLWlHhIjPVv5ujgNzMdjlzfg+UW0= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id l1mr6677872nfi; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 06:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:36:27 +0200 From: "Guillaume Nodet" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: Synchronous message (over Drools) In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_115135_3088353.1157376987423" References: <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_115135_3088353.1157376987423 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline The drools component will block if you use send an InOut exchange to it. In such a case, you need to use the <jbi:route /> condition. On 9/4/06, kokkolo <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > > Hello, > > I just started using SeviceMix and I hope you'll be able to help me on > this. > > I would like to have the following schema: > > A---->B(drools)---->C (do some job) > A<----B(drools)<----C > > There are three components: > > Component A sends a message to B (drools component) that decides where to > send it further (e.g. to C component). C component fetches some data, do a > calculation and returns result as a message, > > Now I would like that component A bliocks until it gets reply from > copmponent C. > If I use deliveryChannel.sendSync(message) it unblocks as soon as B gets > the > message. > > Is there any pattern to solve this problem? > > Thanks, > Frane. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Synchronous-message-%28over-Drools%29-tf2215088.html#a6135214 > Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev rcantu@example.net. > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------=_Part_115135_3088353.1157376987423-- From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Mon Sep 04 13:53:55 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 77541 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2006 13:53:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2006 13:53:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 91597 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 13:53:51 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 91587 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 13:53:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 91578 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2006 13:53:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:53:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:53:50 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n29so1211075nfc for <rcantu@example.net>; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:53:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=E6Gw1J8ungnuqkP+6x2BHlzeY0XmZX1OkVjPhYaI6MfyPS69O0BBK5ZAPa4AaY/BT410DLBQty0/ypQK7zNSXiocI4o1iBCqWDYjYzlqJ7TdMmtEXSidP8ai8J/dl4Illq9uvUUcIL1F0UDvHw5ygSMtbjEgR35iRyRHVmIv1f0= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id p19mr6692082nfh; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 06:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:53:29 +0200 From: "Guillaume Nodet" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: messages monitoring In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_115459_27315620.1157378009153" References: <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_115459_27315620.1157378009153 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline You can add listeners as shown in the following examples: http://servicemix.goopen.org/site/visualisation.html See also the following links for more infos http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/maven/servicemix-core/apidocs/org/apache/servicemix/jbi/event/package-summary.html http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/maven/servicemix-core/apidocs/org/apache/servicemix/jbi/audit/jdbc/package-summary.html On 9/4/06, emicalc <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > > Hello, > I would like to know if in servicemix there is a mechanism to monitoring > the > exchange of message between the components. > Thank you > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/messages-monitoring-tf2214901.html#a6134658 > Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev rcantu@example.net. > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------=_Part_115459_27315620.1157378009153-- From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Mon Sep 04 14:07:54 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 80489 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2006 14:07:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2006 14:07:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 9492 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 14:07:51 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 9473 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 14:07:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 9464 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2006 14:07:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:07:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:07:51 -0700 Received: from brutus (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C741E71431B for <rcantu@example.net>; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:04:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <8015391.1157378663813.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 07:04:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Guillaume Nodet (JIRA)" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: [jira] Updated: (SM-557) WSDL 1.1 message normalization for the servicemix-http component In-Reply-To: <2905634.1156522463382.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N [ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-557?page=all ] Guillaume Nodet updated SM-557: ------------------------------- Attachment: normalization-diff.zip Attached is a modified patch which mainly add a clean WS-I compliant wsdl generation. The document/rpc style is discovered given the abstract wsdl. We will need a more abstrat description of the binding to handle WSDL 2 and rest bindings, and also enhance existing components to use the wsdl 1.1 jbi wrapper. > WSDL 1.1 message normalization for the servicemix-http component > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SM-557 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-557 > Project: ServiceMix > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: servicemix-http, servicemix-soap > Affects Versions: 3.0-M2 > Reporter: Alex Boisvert > Fix For: 3.0-M3 > > Attachments: normalization-diff.zip, normalization-diff.zip > > > The attached patch provides WSDL 1.1 message normalization for the servicemix-http component and provides a set of reusable classes for converting between SOAP 1.1 messages and JBI messages using WSDL 1.1 definitions (assuming WS-I BasicProfile compliance) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Mon Sep 04 14:13:11 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 81736 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2006 14:13:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2006 14:13:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 17667 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 14:13:11 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 17504 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 14:13:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 17488 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2006 14:13:10 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:13:10 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:13:10 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n29so1214723nfc for <rcantu@example.net>; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:12:48 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Cdi7vezac9OY5c8BVMXYdrjvoTjmSP18ftclISSJmoYT5ZIe5BDwyw1AFpZ1I4kCCTDvusDIde9FmQK5OHBVOLMNuf6BZPAxG55TWscdzlmaA8gKUjuLGBDJZsYtNG5BHN9wJXB4xOkkIZK8QUyRRI+oz7i5hiB8wanyV8fUXVM= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id l15mr6633862nfi; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 07:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:12:48 +0200 From: "Guillaume Nodet" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: servicemix-http and normalization In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_115875_6460622.1157379168574" References: <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_115875_6460622.1157379168574 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I have attached an updated patch to the jira http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=24443 I still have some questions, now that I have a better understanding of what the patch do. Mainly, I'm questionning the need to the wsdl 1.1 jbi wrapper. If all services exposed and invoked by servicemix are ws-i basic profile compliant, there is only one child in the soap body. Other parts that may be included in the normalized message may come from soap headers. So we are in the same case as for WSDL 2.0: only one element in the soap body, and additioanl soap headers. However, for WSDL 2, soap headers won't be mapped inside the xml content, but should be put as properties on the message. So i'm not quite sure if headers should be put inside the content for WSDL 1.1, as it will not be consistent. I don't really see the point of the wrapper here. Thoughts ? On 8/31/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > The binding model should only be built on top of the wsdl for the > current > > HttpEndpoint (either consumer or provider). This WSDL can be > > explicitely set, or may be auto-generated using the target endpoint > > WSDL. If the WSDL is provided, there is nothing to do, but if the WSDL > > is generated, we have to: > > * check if there is any existing binding infos (for example, if the > > target > > endpoint is a soap provider). In this case, we should use the > > binding > > informations > > * else, we need a flag on the http endpoint to set the binding style > > (rpc / doc). If the user need to provide a more detailed binding, > > then he has to provide it in the wsdl. > > Ok, that clarifies it. > > > > I'm trying to abstract the SoapBindingModel a bit more to be able to > > easily handle a plain HTTP binding. > > WSDL 2.0 bindings will require another reformat later i guess. > > Cool! I might be able to help with WSDL 2.0 as well. > > thanks, > alex > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------=_Part_115875_6460622.1157379168574-- From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Mon Sep 04 22:21:00 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 97233 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2006 22:20:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2006 22:20:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 31898 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 22:20:53 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 31724 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2006 22:20:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 31714 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2006 22:20:52 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:20:52 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:20:51 -0700 Received: from brutus (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7463171431B for <rcantu@example.net>; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:17:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <6019473.1157408243473.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:17:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Guillaume Nodet (JIRA)" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: [jira] Resolved: (SM-524) XML generated by AdminCommmandsService.listComponents() is not well-formed In-Reply-To: <19785144.1155053003107.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N [ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-524?page=all ] Guillaume Nodet resolved SM-524. -------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 3.0-M3 Resolution: Fixed Assignee: Guillaume Nodet Already fixed > XML generated by AdminCommmandsService.listComponents() is not well-formed > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SM-524 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-524 > Project: ServiceMix > Issue Type: Bug > Components: servicemix-core > Environment: All > Reporter: Joe Kutner > Assigned To: Guillaume Nodet > Fix For: 3.0-M3 > > Original Estimate: 1 minute > Remaining Estimate: 1 minute > > The XML that is generated by the AdminCommandsService.listComponents() method is not well formed. > Line 300 of org.apache.servicemix.jbi.framework.AdminCommandsService reads: > buffer.append(" <component-info>"); > but should read: > buffer.append(" <component-info "); -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Tue Sep 05 15:35:47 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 74145 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2006 15:35:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2006 15:35:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 36672 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 15:35:46 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 36602 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 15:35:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 36593 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2006 15:35:45 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:35:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: unknown (asf.osuosl.org: error in processing during lookup of rcantu@example.net) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO py-out-1112.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:35:44 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x66so6451623pye for <rcantu@example.net>; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id r16mr12696361pym; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?83.161.120.155? ( [83.161.120.155]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id w25sm8036573pyw.283.161.120.155.35.22; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:35:18 -0700 From: Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> Organization: Intalio inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: servicemix-http and normalization References: <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Oh yes, good question! The point of mapping headers into message content is that many applications/frameworks do not give you easy access (or advise against accessing) message headers. Take, for example, BPEL processes. BPEL only gives you access to the abstract message definition. If headers are not defined and mapped into the content, you can't access them in a portable way. Maybe we could have a configuration attribute to normalize using WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0? That way, if there are no mapped headers and only one SOAP body element, then we could have basic support for WSDL 2.0. I'm very interested in getting full WSDL 1.1 support because that's what's mostly used and deployed today. The tooling and infrastructure ecosystem works great with WSDL 1.1 but still has ways to go with WSDL 2.0. With complete WSDL 1.1 support, we can make the most of ServiceMix today and gradually migrate to WSDL 2.0 when it becomes more widespread. alex Guillaume Nodet wrote: > I have attached an updated patch to the jira > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=24443 > > I still have some questions, now that I have a better understanding of > what > the > patch do. Mainly, I'm questionning the need to the wsdl 1.1 jbi wrapper. > If all services exposed and invoked by servicemix are ws-i basic profile > compliant, there is only one child in the soap body. Other parts that > may be included in the normalized message may come from soap headers. > So we are in the same case as for WSDL 2.0: only one element in the > soap body, and additioanl soap headers. However, for WSDL 2, soap > headers won't be mapped inside the xml content, but should be put > as properties on the message. So i'm not quite sure if headers should > be put inside the content for WSDL 1.1, as it will not be consistent. > I don't really see the point of the wrapper here. > > Thoughts ? > > On 8/31/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> wrote: >> >> Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> > The binding model should only be built on top of the wsdl for the >> current >> > HttpEndpoint (either consumer or provider). This WSDL can be >> > explicitely set, or may be auto-generated using the target endpoint >> > WSDL. If the WSDL is provided, there is nothing to do, but if the >> WSDL >> > is generated, we have to: >> > * check if there is any existing binding infos (for example, if the >> > target >> > endpoint is a soap provider). In this case, we should use the >> > binding >> > informations >> > * else, we need a flag on the http endpoint to set the binding style >> > (rpc / doc). If the user need to provide a more detailed binding, >> > then he has to provide it in the wsdl. >> >> Ok, that clarifies it. >> >> >> > I'm trying to abstract the SoapBindingModel a bit more to be able to >> > easily handle a plain HTTP binding. >> > WSDL 2.0 bindings will require another reformat later i guess. >> >> Cool! I might be able to help with WSDL 2.0 as well. >> >> thanks, >> alex >> >> > > From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Tue Sep 05 16:13:36 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 83459 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2006 16:13:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2006 16:13:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 9976 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:13:33 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 9952 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:13:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 9943 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2006 16:13:33 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:13:33 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS,HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: unknown (asf.osuosl.org: error in processing during lookup of rcantu@example.net) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-f131.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:13:32 -0700 Received: by nf-out-f131.google.com with SMTP id x9so110958nfb for <rcantu@example.net>; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id 8mr10132757wxh; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:13:10 -0400 From: "Maciej Szefler" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: servicemix-http and normalization In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_124062_12168775.1157472790210" References: <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_124062_12168775.1157472790210 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I don't recall there being anything in WSI-BP that prohibits the usage of RPC-literal encoding, which results in multiple parts. -mbs On 9/5/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > > Oh yes, good question! The point of mapping headers into message > content is that many applications/frameworks do not give you easy access > (or advise against accessing) message headers. > > Take, for example, BPEL processes. BPEL only gives you access to the > abstract message definition. If headers are not defined and mapped into > the content, you can't access them in a portable way. > > Maybe we could have a configuration attribute to normalize using WSDL > 1.1 or WSDL 2.0? That way, if there are no mapped headers and only one > SOAP body element, then we could have basic support for WSDL 2.0. > > I'm very interested in getting full WSDL 1.1 support because that's > what's mostly used and deployed today. The tooling and infrastructure > ecosystem works great with WSDL 1.1 but still has ways to go with WSDL > 2.0. With complete WSDL 1.1 support, we can make the most of > ServiceMix today and gradually migrate to WSDL 2.0 when it becomes more > widespread. > > alex > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > I have attached an updated patch to the jira > > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=24443 > > > > I still have some questions, now that I have a better understanding of > > what > > the > > patch do. Mainly, I'm questionning the need to the wsdl 1.1 jbi > wrapper. > > If all services exposed and invoked by servicemix are ws-i basic profile > > compliant, there is only one child in the soap body. Other parts that > > may be included in the normalized message may come from soap headers. > > So we are in the same case as for WSDL 2.0: only one element in the > > soap body, and additioanl soap headers. However, for WSDL 2, soap > > headers won't be mapped inside the xml content, but should be put > > as properties on the message. So i'm not quite sure if headers should > > be put inside the content for WSDL 1.1, as it will not be consistent. > > I don't really see the point of the wrapper here. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > On 8/31/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > >> > >> Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> > The binding model should only be built on top of the wsdl for the > >> current > >> > HttpEndpoint (either consumer or provider). This WSDL can be > >> > explicitely set, or may be auto-generated using the target endpoint > >> > WSDL. If the WSDL is provided, there is nothing to do, but if the > >> WSDL > >> > is generated, we have to: > >> > * check if there is any existing binding infos (for example, if the > >> > target > >> > endpoint is a soap provider). In this case, we should use the > >> > binding > >> > informations > >> > * else, we need a flag on the http endpoint to set the binding style > >> > (rpc / doc). If the user need to provide a more detailed > binding, > >> > then he has to provide it in the wsdl. > >> > >> Ok, that clarifies it. > >> > >> > >> > I'm trying to abstract the SoapBindingModel a bit more to be able to > >> > easily handle a plain HTTP binding. > >> > WSDL 2.0 bindings will require another reformat later i guess. > >> > >> Cool! I might be able to help with WSDL 2.0 as well. > >> > >> thanks, > >> alex > >> > >> > > > > > > ------=_Part_124062_12168775.1157472790210-- From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Tue Sep 05 16:19:25 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 84925 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2006 16:19:22 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2006 16:19:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 20371 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:19:22 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 20347 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:19:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 20338 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2006 16:19:21 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:19:21 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:19:20 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n29so1455839nfc for <rcantu@example.net>; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:18:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=myBrmXK0L7I3eOHDbZV8tgPUXqCBdTAv7TjhlP2PsVo8+w1wzwxd5FvYnMcGU7LQKR0WQDSTxFoLhC2Rtbf6NkNh0zR6l0CvGYOManZAsPZQDMKjzb2Y3+FXqU5BEffvG1gH2U4dg5UloDu4fKZZypGH+XWUy+hevRY+H988l1M= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id x5mr7970680nfi; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:18:58 +0200 From: "Guillaume Nodet" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: servicemix-http and normalization In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_140718_13856629.1157473138283" References: <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_140718_13856629.1157473138283 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline See http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#SOAP_encodingStyle_Attribute it seems pretty clear for me, but maybe i misread it. On 9/5/06, Maciej Szefler <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > I don't recall there being anything in WSI-BP that prohibits the usage of > RPC-literal encoding, which results in multiple parts. > > -mbs > > On 9/5/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > Oh yes, good question! The point of mapping headers into message > > content is that many applications/frameworks do not give you easy access > > (or advise against accessing) message headers. > > > > Take, for example, BPEL processes. BPEL only gives you access to the > > abstract message definition. If headers are not defined and mapped into > > the content, you can't access them in a portable way. > > > > Maybe we could have a configuration attribute to normalize using WSDL > > 1.1 or WSDL 2.0? That way, if there are no mapped headers and only one > > SOAP body element, then we could have basic support for WSDL 2.0. > > > > I'm very interested in getting full WSDL 1.1 support because that's > > what's mostly used and deployed today. The tooling and infrastructure > > ecosystem works great with WSDL 1.1 but still has ways to go with WSDL > > 2.0. With complete WSDL 1.1 support, we can make the most of > > ServiceMix today and gradually migrate to WSDL 2.0 when it becomes more > > widespread. > > > > alex > > > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > I have attached an updated patch to the jira > > > > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=24443 > > > > > > I still have some questions, now that I have a better understanding of > > > what > > > the > > > patch do. Mainly, I'm questionning the need to the wsdl 1.1 jbi > > wrapper. > > > If all services exposed and invoked by servicemix are ws-i basic > profile > > > compliant, there is only one child in the soap body. Other parts that > > > may be included in the normalized message may come from soap headers. > > > So we are in the same case as for WSDL 2.0: only one element in the > > > soap body, and additioanl soap headers. However, for WSDL 2, soap > > > headers won't be mapped inside the xml content, but should be put > > > as properties on the message. So i'm not quite sure if headers should > > > be put inside the content for WSDL 1.1, as it will not be consistent. > > > I don't really see the point of the wrapper here. > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > On 8/31/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > >> > The binding model should only be built on top of the wsdl for the > > >> current > > >> > HttpEndpoint (either consumer or provider). This WSDL can be > > >> > explicitely set, or may be auto-generated using the target endpoint > > >> > WSDL. If the WSDL is provided, there is nothing to do, but if the > > >> WSDL > > >> > is generated, we have to: > > >> > * check if there is any existing binding infos (for example, if > the > > >> > target > > >> > endpoint is a soap provider). In this case, we should use the > > >> > binding > > >> > informations > > >> > * else, we need a flag on the http endpoint to set the binding > style > > >> > (rpc / doc). If the user need to provide a more detailed > > binding, > > >> > then he has to provide it in the wsdl. > > >> > > >> Ok, that clarifies it. > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'm trying to abstract the SoapBindingModel a bit more to be able > to > > >> > easily handle a plain HTTP binding. > > >> > WSDL 2.0 bindings will require another reformat later i guess. > > >> > > >> Cool! I might be able to help with WSDL 2.0 as well. > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> alex > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------=_Part_140718_13856629.1157473138283-- From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Tue Sep 05 16:31:09 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 88089 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2006 16:31:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2006 16:31:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 39078 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:31:03 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 39062 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:31:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 39044 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2006 16:31:03 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:31:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:31:00 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c29so2336nfb for <rcantu@example.net>; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:30:39 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=fEVioYUzNGBxdMep4XDojh2gAIcYhgTI79jJFTLA9cnoJ8/AwjoU0HUSUaoPzlX4PN/0WqfDVX4a1g2zCBRi+sPCMP4WP5u66coocltBKtbmIMSUpKMlkpUOIqXddPiteKKFy6yoaKZNKQOD+gP0tNXtS0r7s1Lh+xOJqukO0d4= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id 4mr7976867nfn; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <rcantu@example.net> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:30:38 +0200 From: "Guillaume Nodet" <rcantu@example.net> To: rcantu@example.net Subject: Re: servicemix-http and normalization In-Reply-To: <rcantu@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_140934_16166367.1157473838783" References: <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> <rcantu@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_140934_16166367.1157473838783 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline See also http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#Encodings_and_the_use_Attribute On 9/5/06, Guillaume Nodet <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > See > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#SOAP_encodingStyle_Attribute > > it seems pretty clear for me, but maybe i misread it. > > > On 9/5/06, Maciej Szefler <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > > > I don't recall there being anything in WSI-BP that prohibits the usage > > of > > RPC-literal encoding, which results in multiple parts. > > > > -mbs > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Oh yes, good question! The point of mapping headers into message > > > content is that many applications/frameworks do not give you easy > > access > > > (or advise against accessing) message headers. > > > > > > Take, for example, BPEL processes. BPEL only gives you access to the > > > abstract message definition. If headers are not defined and mapped > > into > > > the content, you can't access them in a portable way. > > > > > > Maybe we could have a configuration attribute to normalize using WSDL > > > 1.1 or WSDL 2.0? That way, if there are no mapped headers and only > > one > > > SOAP body element, then we could have basic support for WSDL 2.0. > > > > > > I'm very interested in getting full WSDL 1.1 support because that's > > > what's mostly used and deployed today. The tooling and > > infrastructure > > > ecosystem works great with WSDL 1.1 but still has ways to go with WSDL > > > > > 2.0. With complete WSDL 1.1 support, we can make the most of > > > ServiceMix today and gradually migrate to WSDL 2.0 when it becomes > > more > > > widespread. > > > > > > alex > > > > > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > > I have attached an updated patch to the jira > > > > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=24443 > > > > > > > > > > I still have some questions, now that I have a better understanding > > of > > > > what > > > > the > > > > patch do. Mainly, I'm questionning the need to the wsdl 1.1 jbi > > > wrapper. > > > > If all services exposed and invoked by servicemix are ws-i basic > > profile > > > > compliant, there is only one child in the soap body. Other parts > > that > > > > may be included in the normalized message may come from soap > > headers. > > > > So we are in the same case as for WSDL 2.0: only one element in the > > > > soap body, and additioanl soap headers. However, for WSDL 2, soap > > > > headers won't be mapped inside the xml content, but should be put > > > > as properties on the message. So i'm not quite sure if headers > > should > > > > be put inside the content for WSDL 1.1, as it will not be > > consistent. > > > > I don't really see the point of the wrapper here. > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > On 8/31/06, Alex Boisvert <rcantu@example.net> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > >> > The binding model should only be built on top of the wsdl for the > > > >> current > > > >> > HttpEndpoint (either consumer or provider). This WSDL can be > > > >> > explicitely set, or may be auto-generated using the target > > endpoint > > > >> > WSDL. If the WSDL is provided, there is nothing to do, but if > > the > > > >> WSDL > > > >> > is generated, we have to: > > > >> > * check if there is any existing binding infos (for example, if > > the > > > >> > target > > > >> > endpoint is a soap provider). In this case, we should use > > the > > > >> > binding > > > >> > informations > > > >> > * else, we need a flag on the http endpoint to set the binding > > style > > > >> > (rpc / doc). If the user need to provide a more detailed > > > binding, > > > >> > then he has to provide it in the wsdl. > > > >> > > > >> Ok, that clarifies it. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I'm trying to abstract the SoapBindingModel a bit more to be > > able to > > > >> > easily handle a plain HTTP binding. > > > >> > WSDL 2.0 bindings will require another reformat later i guess. > > > >> > > > >> Cool! I might be able to help with WSDL 2.0 as well. > > > >> > > > >> thanks, > > > >> alex > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------=_Part_140934_16166367.1157473838783-- From servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net Tue Sep 05 16:53:49 2006 Return-Path: <servicemix-dev-returnrcantu@example.net> Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 93850 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2006 16:53:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2006 16:53:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 68916 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:53:44 -0000 Delivered-To: rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 68891 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2006 16:53:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rcantu@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:rcantu@example.net> List-Id: <servicemix-dev.geronimo.apache.org> Reply-To: rcantu@example.net Delivered-To: mailing list rcantu@example.net Received: (qmail 68882 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2006 16:53:44 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:53:44 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rcantu@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:53:43 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c29so8758nfb for <rcantu@example.net>;
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}