Re: Web Service Stack for EAP 5
by Thomas Diesler
Hi Burr,
Please see my response inlined.
Burr Sutter wrote:
> Was that answer the same as the one below. :-)
>
> It seems that based on the current answer we are moving forward with
> JBossWS Native for AS 5, EAP 5 and SOA Platform 4.3.
> So the following are current & planned for "missing" items (I'm just
> trying to make sure that I have my story straight)
> - While WS-RM is a new feature, it appears to not be making it into AS
> 5.0, EAP 5
Yes, it will be in AS50 (release date 1-Apr)
http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBWS?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.s...
> - An incomplete WS-Security offering (I can't remember which features
> are considered to be "incomplete" - this comment was from a customer)
> - No AtomicTransaction
> - No BusinessActivity
> - No Coordination
You can monitor
http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBWS-461
> - No Trust
> - No SecureConversation
> - No REST (not necessarily tied to JBossWS but falls in the same category)
We try to unlock these from jbossws-metro
> - No non-HTTP transports
We have jms transport
> - No non-JAXB serialization (e.g. JSON, JiBX)
We have JSON
http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBWS-1165
> - No proof of .NET interop (a customer perceived value of the Metro stack).
We attend the .NET interop workshops, just like Metro does. There we
test the functionality we have available
Heiko, is taking care of
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=131839
> - No tooling in JBDS ( a recent complaint from a few customers, JBDS
> ships with Axis tooling and not SoapUI) - we'd like both contract first
> & pojo-first tooing
Tooling is indeed a very weak spot. AFAIK, we don't even have a strategy
for that since SoapUI is out (without replacement nor my consent).
> - No Notification (I'm aware that this is a dead standard, but people
> like it in the ServiceMix & CXF worlds)
> - No Spring integration (more people are adopting the Spring-way of
> "wiring" & configuration)
> - No JON, SOA Software & Amberpoint properly integrated for runtime
> monitoring/management/governance
Not on the roadmap, if not provided by metro/cxf
>
> How about WSDL 2.0? I'm drawing a blank on where that one stands but I
> think it is a No as well.
WSDL-2.0 is practically irrelevant AFAICT
>
> From my "marketing" perspective, that is a lot of NOs at this point in
> the overall game. BEA, Oracle & IBM are "hurting" us in this area.
> Luckily our customers haven't widely adopted WS-* overall but if we wish
> to be taken seriously in the SOA space, we'll need to at least keep up
> with the other open source engines (Glassfish, Geronimo, Mule, ServiceMix).
With the current resource situation we can allocate 25% (i.e. one guy to
metro/cxf integration)
>
>
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>> We answered this already, right?
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> On 10 Mar 2008, at 13:53, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> We discussed this topic on Friday last week during our internal team
>>> workshop. As a result we came up with the idea of defining the set of
>>> required functionality for an enterprise ready web service stack and
>>> compare what we currently have in all three stacks. The result of
>>> this comparison would give us a clearer idea of how we want to move
>>> forward and how we distribute our available resources.
>>>
>>> http://jbws.dyndns.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=JBossWSSupportedStackCom...
>>>
>>>
>>> Native is the only certified stack, integration work for WS-TX
>>> pending, weak in the tools area.
>>>
>>> CXF has javaee5 certification pending, integration and documentation
>>> of extended functionality pending.
>>>
>>> Metro has javaee5 certification pending, integration and
>>> documentation of extended functionality pending. Metro is also
>>> considering their offer complete.
>>>
>>> My preferred strategy would be to gradually unlock more of the
>>> Metro/CXF functionality (maybe 20% of our time) and start the TCK
>>> effort for one of the stacks when/if we decide to replace our default
>>> stack. But instead of jumping to a conclusion, I would like to bounce
>>> this back to you for feedback.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> -thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Little wrote:
>>>> I would have thought that JBossWS-native is the tier 1 because we
>>>> know we can support it now and then Metro and CXF as tier 2/3.
>>>> Obviously things may change in subsequent releases, as long as
>>>> backward compatibility isn't broken.
>>>> Mark.
>>>> On 6 Mar 2008, at 22:16, Andrig T Miller wrote:
>>>>> Mark and Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we all are now on the same page about what version of our
>>>>> WS stack is in AS 5, the question now for EAP 5, is which web
>>>>> service stack, our own JBoss Native, CXF or Metro are we actually
>>>>> going to ship with EAP 5. Of course, whatever version it is needs
>>>>> to pass the Java EE 5 TCK, and not be missing anything we have
>>>>> supported from a feature perspective in previous EAP releases (4.2
>>>>> and 4.3). The consensus, in the discussion so far, is that we also
>>>>> only want to ship one, and hence support one stack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrig (Andy) Miller
>>>>> VP of Engineering
>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Mark Little
>>>> mlittle(a)redhat.com <mailto:mlittle@redhat.com>
>>>> JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
>>>> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
>>>> Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
>>>> Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
>>>> Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
>>>> Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).
>>>
>>> --
>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Thomas Diesler
>>> Web Service Lead
>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> ----
>> Mark Little
>> mlittle(a)redhat.com
>>
>> JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
>> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
>> Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
>> Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
>> Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
>> Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).
>>
>
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
Web Service Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
17 years, 12 months
Re: Web Service Stack for EAP 5
by Mark Little
On 17 Mar 2008, at 18:52, Burr Sutter wrote:
> Was that answer the same as the one below. :-)
>
> It seems that based on the current answer we are moving forward with
> JBossWS Native for AS 5, EAP 5 and SOA Platform 4.3.
The SOAP abstraction layer will be present (already is present) in EAP
5. We will support JBossWS-native in the first release and the team
will work on full qualification for other stacks as we move forward.
There are discussions being had at the engineering level around this.
>
> So the following are current & planned for "missing" items (I'm just
> trying to make sure that I have my story straight)
> - While WS-RM is a new feature, it appears to not be making it into
> AS 5.0, EAP 5
> - An incomplete WS-Security offering (I can't remember which
> features are considered to be "incomplete" - this comment was from a
> customer)
> - No AtomicTransaction
> - No BusinessActivity
We do have WS-AT and WS-BA support, just not using JBossWS.
>
> - No Coordination
Same as above.
>
> - No Trust
> - No SecureConversation
> - No REST (not necessarily tied to JBossWS but falls in the same
> category)
> - No non-HTTP transports
> - No non-JAXB serialization (e.g. JSON, JiBX)
> - No proof of .NET interop (a customer perceived value of the Metro
> stack).
> - No tooling in JBDS ( a recent complaint from a few customers, JBDS
> ships with Axis tooling and not SoapUI) - we'd like both contract
> first & pojo-first tooing
> - No Notification (I'm aware that this is a dead standard, but
> people like it in the ServiceMix & CXF worlds)
> - No Spring integration (more people are adopting the Spring-way of
> "wiring" & configuration)
> - No JON, SOA Software & Amberpoint properly integrated for runtime
> monitoring/management/governance
>
> How about WSDL 2.0? I'm drawing a blank on where that one stands but
> I think it is a No as well.
>
> From my "marketing" perspective, that is a lot of NOs at this point
> in the overall game. BEA, Oracle & IBM are "hurting" us in this
> area. Luckily our customers haven't widely adopted WS-* overall but
> if we wish to be taken seriously in the SOA space, we'll need to at
> least keep up with the other open source engines (Glassfish,
> Geronimo, Mule, ServiceMix).
>
Yes, that's correct. But show me the 10 people who are waiting to help
us add all of these capabilities into JBossWS within the next few
weeks, and maybe we can revisit.
Mark.
>
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>> We answered this already, right?
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> On 10 Mar 2008, at 13:53, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> We discussed this topic on Friday last week during our internal
>>> team workshop. As a result we came up with the idea of defining
>>> the set of required functionality for an enterprise ready web
>>> service stack and compare what we currently have in all three
>>> stacks. The result of this comparison would give us a clearer idea
>>> of how we want to move forward and how we distribute our available
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> http://jbws.dyndns.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=JBossWSSupportedStackCom...
>>>
>>> Native is the only certified stack, integration work for WS-TX
>>> pending, weak in the tools area.
>>>
>>> CXF has javaee5 certification pending, integration and
>>> documentation of extended functionality pending.
>>>
>>> Metro has javaee5 certification pending, integration and
>>> documentation of extended functionality pending. Metro is also
>>> considering their offer complete.
>>>
>>> My preferred strategy would be to gradually unlock more of the
>>> Metro/CXF functionality (maybe 20% of our time) and start the TCK
>>> effort for one of the stacks when/if we decide to replace our
>>> default stack. But instead of jumping to a conclusion, I would
>>> like to bounce this back to you for feedback.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> -thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Little wrote:
>>>> I would have thought that JBossWS-native is the tier 1 because we
>>>> know we can support it now and then Metro and CXF as tier 2/3.
>>>> Obviously things may change in subsequent releases, as long as
>>>> backward compatibility isn't broken.
>>>> Mark.
>>>> On 6 Mar 2008, at 22:16, Andrig T Miller wrote:
>>>>> Mark and Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we all are now on the same page about what version of
>>>>> our WS stack is in AS 5, the question now for EAP 5, is which
>>>>> web service stack, our own JBoss Native, CXF or Metro are we
>>>>> actually going to ship with EAP 5. Of course, whatever version
>>>>> it is needs to pass the Java EE 5 TCK, and not be missing
>>>>> anything we have supported from a feature perspective in
>>>>> previous EAP releases (4.2 and 4.3). The consensus, in the
>>>>> discussion so far, is that we also only want to ship one, and
>>>>> hence support one stack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrig (Andy) Miller
>>>>> VP of Engineering
>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Mark Little
>>>> mlittle(a)redhat.com <mailto:mlittle@redhat.com>
>>>> JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
>>>> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111
>>>> Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
>>>> Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
>>>> Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
>>>> Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).
>>>
>>> --
>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Thomas Diesler
>>> Web Service Lead
>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> ----
>> Mark Little
>> mlittle(a)redhat.com
>>
>> JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
>> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
>> Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
>> Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
>> Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
>> Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).
>>
>
----
Mark Little
mlittle(a)redhat.com
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).
17 years, 12 months
[Design of JBoss Web Services] - Re: Tagging the TCK repository
by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com
The release was on 2008-01-24 09:28:46 +0100
| [tdiesler@tdvaio jbossws-native-2.0.3.GA]$ svn log --stop-on-copy
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| r5749 | thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com | 2008-02-20 11:56:09 +0100 (Wed, 20 Feb 2008) | 1 line
|
| 2.2.2.SP4-brew
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| r5737 | thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com | 2008-02-19 20:17:38 +0100 (Tue, 19 Feb 2008) | 1 line
|
| Fix svn external for framework 2.0.3.GA
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| r5563 | alessio.soldano(a)jboss.com | 2008-02-05 11:02:32 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 2 lines
|
| Adding docbook xml documentation export
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| r5528 | heiko.braun(a)jboss.com | 2008-01-24 09:37:32 +0100 (Thu, 24 Jan 2008) | 1 line
|
| svn external for framework 2.0.3.GA
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| r5527 | heiko.braun(a)jboss.com | 2008-01-24 09:28:46 +0100 (Thu, 24 Jan 2008) | 1 line
|
| Tag 2.0.3GA
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
If we cant get exact TCK revisions, we can branch the TCK projects from that date
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4137120#4137120
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4137120
18 years
Code Freeze + Hudson QA Setup
by Richard Opalka
Hi Folks,
as you know there was a code freeze on Friday.
In order to create Hudson QA branch setup we need
stable jbossws trunks.
At the moment there are two issues that we can see:
* reopened exception handling issue [JBWS-1941] causing hudson
regression in native trunk
* reopened metro build issue [JBWS-1994] causing hudson regression in
metro trunk
Alessio is already working on JBWS-1941 as I know.
What about JBWS-1994? Are you working on it Heiko already?
Are you too busy with SPI at the moment or you will fix this issue first?
Or you want me to fix it for you? If yes, I need to know how to
correctly fix it. I read
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4136582
forum but I'm not 100 % sure how to fix it correctly :(
Are there any other outstanding issues folks that you want to push
to the jbossws trunks before creating QA branches?
Richard
--
B.Sc. Richard Opalka
Senior Software Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Mobile: +420 731 186 942
Mail: ropalka(a)redhat.com
18 years