[jbossws-dev] Re: Web Service Stack for EAP 5

[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.system.project:roadmap-panel

> - 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=JBossWSSupportedStackComparison 
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 at redhat.com <mailto:mlittle at 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 at 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