1:40 p.m.
On 18 Mar 2008, at 17:39, Burr Sutter wrote:
>>
>
> We do have WS-AT and WS-BA support, just not using JBossWS.
So when we say that WS-Transactions are there but not using JBossWS,
what does that specifically mean from an end-user perspective? Can
I run both in the same container at the same time, mix & match
endpoints? Can I annotate my POJO with @WebService and then change
some configuration files to "engage" WS-Transactions capabilities?
It means that WS-C/WS-AT and WS-BA are present, tested and using their
own SOAP stack for the protocol aspects. If JBossWS is used for the
application, then the only thing that needs to be added to the SOAP
message is the context. And there are handlers for that too.
>>
>
> 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.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that these capabilities would
come without some resource investment. With that said, it is a
belief within the customer/prospect base that the integration of
Metro or CXF would mean we get some/all of these "for free" by
simply including their stacks in our platform.
We'd definitely get there quicker. But not "for free" ;-)
Now, I'm sure there is still a ton of integration work, QA work,
testsuite integration, new test case creation, build system retrofit
and this assumption is based on theory that CXF and Metro have high
quality implementations of those standards that don't require us to
fix.
>
Mark.
----
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).
1:46 p.m.
New subject: Web Service Stack for EAP 5
Good point.
'Quick' is a question of what we need to achieve in terms of
product requirements. The 'price' we pay is something that's hard to
determine. But certainly you'd have to consider maintainability of the
code base as well.
It might as well be that the native stack is both the quickest and the
most maintainable way to achieve our goals.
So, let's start talking about facts.
What do the JBoss products require?
/Heiko
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:40 +0000, Mark Little wrote:
We'd definitely get there quicker. But not "for free" ;-)
1:57 p.m.
New subject: Web Service Stack for EAP 5
The native stack is definitely the quickest way to achieve what we
need now: which is what is on Thomas' wiki page that he sent round
earlier. But it's not the way to go in the future. We have neither the
time nor the resources to track everything that will need to be done
over the next couple of years. And why should we when there are good
community implementations like Metro and CXF that we could leverage
instead? We'd need to get involved with them of course. But why should
we be implementing our own stack now? There are no go business or
technical reasons for it. the SOAP stack is the glue. The added value
has always been what is glued, rather than the glue itself. JEE has a
strong requirement for CORBA, but you don't see us implementing our
own ORB: we take JacORB. Why should Web Services be any different?
Mark.
On 19 Mar 2008, at 12:46, Heiko Braun wrote:
Good point.
'Quick' is a question of what we need to achieve in terms of
product requirements. The 'price' we pay is something that's hard to
determine. But certainly you'd have to consider maintainability of the
code base as well.
It might as well be that the native stack is both the quickest and the
most maintainable way to achieve our goals.
So, let's start talking about facts.
What do the JBoss products require?
/Heiko
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:40 +0000, Mark Little wrote:
>
> We'd definitely get there quicker. But not "for free" ;-)
>
----
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).
2:11 p.m.
New subject: Web Service Stack for EAP 5
Agreed. I am just saying instead looking at what the others
have on their managers checklist, we should first come up with
actual requirements.
If we are talking about EAP 5, just write down what the stack really
needs to provide and the WS team can decide on the best way to achieve
this. That's at least my opinion.
/Heiko
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:57 +0000, Mark Little wrote:
But it's not the way to go in the future.
2:35 p.m.
New subject: Web Service Stack for EAP 5
Understood and I think what you've got at the moment is really good
enough. It's the core capabilities. Let's just make sure it's
interoperable and fast, and job done :-)
Mark.
On 19 Mar 2008, at 13:11, Heiko Braun wrote:
Agreed. I am just saying instead looking at what the others
have on their managers checklist, we should first come up with
actual requirements.
If we are talking about EAP 5, just write down what the stack really
needs to provide and the WS team can decide on the best way to achieve
this. That's at least my opinion.
/Heiko
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 12:57 +0000, Mark Little wrote:
> But it's not the way to go in the future.
----
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).
6155
days inactive
6155
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Heiko Braun -
Mark Little