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

[Thomas Diesler]

Burr Sutter wrote:
> Some questions/thoughts inline.
> 
> Mark Little wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> So when we say that WS-Transactions are there but not using JBossWS, 
> what does that specifically mean from an end-user perspective?  

It specifically means that it is not there.

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?
>>

You can as soon as this is documented in our user guide

http://jbws.dyndns.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=User_Guide#WS-Transaction

and we have automated tests for that. Until then its plain theory - some 
people might say a marketing lie ;-)



>>>
>>> - 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.
> 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. 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.

http://jbws.dyndns.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=JBossWSSupportedStackComparison

[2] mean theoretically available, but we are working on it to make it 
available

X means you have the choice in stack.

For example when we unlock Metros WS-RM I know already that the RM 
receiver is bound to the endpoint. i.e. when the endpoint goes down the 
client cannot send RM messages any more. Which IMHO defeats the 
intension of RM. A customer that truly needs RM might want to stick with 
Native until this is fixed in Metro.

>>
>> 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=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).
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ----
>> 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