Why are port and operations QNames in the jmx ON?

Hi, I noticed that in the ObjectNames for PerformanceCounter the port and operation are modeled as QName instead of String. I believe that is totally unnecessary and only makes the ONs long and harder to read. Is there a reason for the port and operation to be qnames? The service is a

Re: Why are port and operations QNames in the jmx ON?

On Friday 05 September 2008 10:25:34 am Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that in the ObjectNames for PerformanceCounter the port and > operation are modeled as QName instead of String. I believe that is > totally unnecessary and only makes the ONs long and harder to read. > Is there a re

WS-RM issue

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1156 Look like WS-RM makes more sense for aysncronous invocation and one way invocation (quite similar to JMS reliability), rather than a standard request-response pattern. So the above issue wont be a very valid case. Am I right?

Re: WS-RM issue

Dunno if I'd agree with this JIRA, if I've understood it correctly. For a request-response MEP, WS-RM can be configured so that a "202 Accepted" response is immediately sent back to the client (possibly including an eager ACK) and then whenever it becomes available the real response is sent o

Re: WS-RM issue

So that is kind of an asynchronous invocation. Not a synchronous request-response pattern.That again means the JIRA is not a very valid use case. If convinced, I shall close the JIRA. On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Eoghan Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dunno if I'd agree with this JIRA,

Re: Why are port and operations QNames in the jmx ON?

Hi Hadrian, The port and operation could have different target namespace against the the service. Maybe we could remove the namespace of port and operation in the ObjectName if they are same with the service's target namespace. Regards, Willem Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: Hi, I noticed that in t