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

[Mark Little]

On 18 Mar 2008, at 18:10, Thomas Diesler wrote:

>>>
>> 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. We have Web Services transactions. In fact we've sold it to  
several large customers (Tibco and webMethods). It's just not using  
JBossWS. We have not said that we support WS-TX in JBossWS as far as I  
know. If we have, then that would be inaccurate. But it is definitely  
inaccurate to say that we do not have WS-TX.


>>> 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.

Well there are always trade-offs. Have we tested our WS-RM  
interoperability with Microsoft and IBM, for example? The answer to  
that may well affect more customers than the issue you mentioned.

Mark.

----
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).