anonymous wrote : Web Services (if I understand correctly) wants to be able to use
Remoting like a URLConnection. In other words, open an HTTP connection or JMS session
(which one depends on the URI scheme) and shove SOAP through, and (presumably) it will
interoperate with whatever is on the other side without the Web Services implementation
having to know what protocol is 'really' being used. And on the receiving side, it
would be able to accept requests/messages from arbitrary peers (in other words, possibly
not running Remoting). In addition, using HTTP should provide a level of abstraction above
the HTTP client or server, such that there is no dependency on any specific implementation
library.
IIRC, Web Services team is using their own marshaller and unmarshaller. If Remoting 3 is
going to retain the pluggability of marshallers and unmarshallers, I think it's fully
up to the WS team to provide interoperability or not using Remoting. Our primary concern
is of course not to provide interoperability between various parties (that's what WS
is for), but we can still provide an extension point as we did in Remoting 2. I agree
with you in that it's of dubious value though. Is there any reason for WS team to use
Remoting to call other Web services? There are many other WS client libraries. I am very
curious.
Providing various transports and extension points might make a lot of sense only if a user
wants to switch from one transport to the other (e.g. JMS -> FTP). Any advanced
configuration could be specified via a configuration file or in a programmatic way via
Microcontainer. However, Remoting won't exploit the full features of the underlying
transport. However once again, it could be very beneficial for certain users who
don't want to use advanced features of the underlying transport (e.g. transaction).
So, I generally agree with David, and also believe we can keep focusing on providing
high-level API rather than on interoperability between various parties, while providing an
extension point for implementing the interoperability by users themselves (not by us).
WDYT? Am I getting things correctly? :)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4099812#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...