I agree with Ramesh's suggestion about the map type parameter. There seems to be no
end to the tweaks needed for the SOAP services people deploy, and this seems like a
strategy to begin with.
~jd
----- "Ramesh Reddy" <rareddy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This is similar approach you have taken with the File translator, so
looks good.
I would rather like to see generic map kind of parameter with known
keys
for the "endpoint" and "soapaction", that we way if there are any
other
headers we need to add then it will stay the same.
In this new calling semantics, who is putting together the request
(for
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
or
http requests, then it makes sense to me.
I do not think I follow your comments in other considerations. Can
you
give some examples.
Thanks
Ramesh..
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
the format
<params><para_name>value</para_name><param_name1>...</params>.
The
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
support rest.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> teiid-dev mailing list
> teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-dev
_______________________________________________
teiid-dev mailing list
teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-dev