Brad Davis [http://community.jboss.org/people/bradsdavis] replied to the discussion
"SOAPProxy initialization and deployment ordering"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/541610#541610
--------------------------------------------------------------
> One of the problems of having conflicting requirements is that we sometimes have to take a middle ground. This is one of those areas.
> This is also why alternatives were put in place, allowing you to do what you wish.
I understand this arguement on every point; I fully agree that you can not make everyone happy. I am just not understanding that when a situation has been brought to the forefront that could literally freeze a server start, no one will own it and log a JIRA.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/541610#541610]
Start a new discussion in JBoss ESB Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
Kevin Conner [http://community.jboss.org/people/Kevin.Conner%40jboss.com] replied to the discussion
"SOAPProxy initialization and deployment ordering"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/541607#541607
--------------------------------------------------------------
> which is that if a service is deployed on the same box
No, what you really mean is if it is deployed within the same VM and, even then, using JBossWS and not some other SOAP stack.
The box and IP addresses are irrelevant. I can have multiple servers running on the same IP address, just as I can have the same server running on multiple IP addresses.
Kev
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/541607#541607]
Start a new discussion in JBoss ESB Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
David Ward [http://community.jboss.org/people/dward] replied to the discussion
"SOAPProxy initialization and deployment ordering"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/541605#541605
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Kevin Conner wrote:
>
> This is also why alternatives were put in place, allowing you to do what you wish.
Kev has it exactly right. As I said up above, "If it's in the same +*VM*+, use internal://. If it's on another server, use http:/// http:// or https:/// https://. If you don't want to be dependent on the availability of the other server, use file:// or classpath://. What's the problem here?"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/541605#541605]
Start a new discussion in JBoss ESB Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
David Ward [http://community.jboss.org/people/dward] replied to the discussion
"SOAPProxy initialization and deployment ordering"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/541601#541601
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Brad Davis wrote:
>
> Precisely my point. localhost is really irrelevant; the point is, the SoapProxy should not freeze a deployment, no matter if the service lies on the same server or a different server.
If it's in the same +*VM*+, use internal://. If it's on another server, use http:// http:// or https:// https://. If you don't want to be dependent on the availability of the other server, use file:// or classpath://. What's the problem here?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/541601#541601]
Start a new discussion in JBoss ESB Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]