----- "Steven Hawkins" <shawkins(a)redhat.com> wrote:
It would be good to have a map, but we have no such construct in
calling a stored procedure. The best you can do is have default
values for parameters and used the named parameter calling syntax. In
a system function we could have whatever syntax we want, but then we
have the problem of how to encapsulate the connection information
(base url, username/password, ws-security, etc.).
The request document is always put together by the user (which may be
assisted by tooling). Only in the case of http are we trying to force
fit the query string to be a document. For SOAP you would just
provide the message body. The proposed document for http is probably
too restrictive since the parameters names would need to be valid
I wonder it it wouldn't be better to require the user to envelope the SOAP message?
This would enable us to provide the WS-* headers as other system or UDF functions that
could put the appropriate values in the document.
The other considerations are really along the lines of offering
better/explicit syntax that would be especially suited for rest -
clob http('url', 'path' [, querystring(expr [as name], ...)]
[header(expr [as name], ...)] [GET|(POST [expr])|...])
but you still like to have username/password, url, and even details of
https handling (which is not even currently handled in the ws resource
adapter) encapsulated outside of the vdb so that it could change per
As a side note, I'm not sure what the previous use-case was, but
allowing the user to pass in the endpoint address seems like a leaky
This was done to allow access to REST like sites that served up the same XML at different
URLs ( ../Employees/1.xml && ../Employees/2.xml)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ramesh Reddy" <rareddy(a)redhat.com>
To: "Steven Hawkins" <shawkins(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "teiid-dev" <teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 7:57:57 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [teiid-dev] what should a translator-ws look like?
This is similar approach you have taken with the File translator, so
I would rather like to see generic map kind of parameter with known
for the "endpoint" and "soapaction", that we way if there are any
headers we need to add then it will stay the same.
In this new calling semantics, who is putting together the request
soap) document? The engine? or the user's transformation? I am little
confused about flow of things from before. If requests always came in
the form <params><param_name>.. and translator converted them to soap
http requests, then it makes sense to me.
I do not think I follow your comments in other considerations. Can
give some examples.
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 16:15 -0400, Steven Hawkins wrote:
> Hello all,
> Based upon the features of the translator-xml, we need a comparable
translator-ws that has a job of simply invoking a service and
returning a document (which can then be processed with xmltable or any
other mechanism). I was thinking of exposing the procedure:
> XML invoke(XML request, String endpoint, String soapaction) - both
endpoint and soapaction default to null and the result is available as
the return parameter.
> With the HTTP mode:
> -with parameter invocation the request document is expected to be in
simplest way to form such a doc is with xmlforest - xmlelement(params,
xmlforest(value as param_name, value1 as param_name1 ...))
> -Path info will be taken from endpoint if it's specified and will be
expected to be a relative path.
> -soapaction would not be used.
> Basic usage would then be:
> call ws-model.invoke(request = value)
> Other considerations:
> We may also want to add system function(s) with nearly the same
approach to allow for ad hoc, non-JCA based service calls.
> We may want to add more explicit calling functionality for http to
> teiid-dev mailing list
teiid-dev mailing list