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 - 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

- 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).

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). >