You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fx-dev@ws.apache.org by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> on 2004/12/01 02:52:44 UTC
Re: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
In addition to these concerns, I'd like to discuss the rationale
of generalizing WS-FX projects to support beyond Axis (and Axis2
in the future). If that comes with no cost then of course its
acceptable but if there's a cost its not acceptable IMO. Glen has
also mentioned some concern about this.
We need to have a general discussion on general@ws maybe before
moving forward on any action motivated by "make it available to
other SOAP stacks."
BTW I would definitely object to having an XMLBeans dependency.
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com>
To: "Springer, Ian P." <ia...@hp.com>
Cc: <fx...@ws.apache.org>; <mu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:29 AM
Subject: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
> Ian,
>
> Before we touch addressing. i feel i don't have a sense of what
> everyone in Apollo/Hermes/Muse is upto. For example, i don't yet see
> an effort to break out the WSN code. I don't see an effort to get the
> projects built by Gump. I don't know how much of which specs are
> already implemented. ...Can you all please address these concerns?
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:06:58 -0500, Springer, Ian P.
> <ia...@hp.com> wrote:
> > I would like to rewrite Addressing to use XMLBeans to represent the
> > Addressing types instead of Axis-generated types. The main reason is to
> > make the Addressing library portable to SOAP engines besides Axis.
> > Axis-generated JAX-RPC types are not portable mainly because they use
> > MessageElement instead of SOAPElement, and org.apache.axis.types.URI
> > instead of String, throughout. Using XMLBeans would have other benefits
> > as well. For instance, I would like to see Addressing support all three
> > versions of the WS-Addressing schema (2003/03, 2004/03, amd 2004/08).
> > The flexbility of XMLBeans would allow one to fairly easily support all
> > three sets of types. Ideally, I'd like to make the impl smart enough to
> > recognize two EPRs from different WS-A namespaces that refer to the same
> > resource.
> >
> > Any thoughts? Any objection to having XMLBeans as a dependency?
> >
> > Ian
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>
Re: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Hi Sam,
> > BTW I would definitely object to having an XMLBeans dependency.
>
> In ws-fx or in any ws project?
Sorry, should've been more specific: I mean in WS-Addressing in
particular. That's such a fundamental beast that IMO in Axis2
that needs to be burnt into the engine. (In a suitably abstracted
form to support non-WS-A scenarios as well as the changing WS-A
specs.) Having such a critical component depend on XMLBeans
means pretty much means XMLBeans is bought into everywhere.
I personally don't want us to bite so hard into a particular
data binding technology. If you can't tell, I'm quite down on
databinding now :-).
> In general (not necessarily in this case
> though) I feel very sympathetic to making stuff run on more than one
> SOAP stack and would be a whole lot less concerned if there were actual
> usable & standard APIs for doing the data binding that would allow for
> easy portability between SOAP engines. In the absence of any such
> standards the only thing people can do is to pick a data binding
> technology/abstraction and integrate it with whatever message interface
> the SOAP stack provides.
Well for something like the EPR structures, there's really no
need to do "data binding" really. Those are pretty stable things,
esp. once the WS-Addr group finishes its work. Its perfectly
ok IMO to "hand bind" that stuff and be done with it. Or use a
tool that will generate code that does not have a runtime dep.
on some jar.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: muse-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: muse-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Hi Sam,
> > BTW I would definitely object to having an XMLBeans dependency.
>
> In ws-fx or in any ws project?
Sorry, should've been more specific: I mean in WS-Addressing in
particular. That's such a fundamental beast that IMO in Axis2
that needs to be burnt into the engine. (In a suitably abstracted
form to support non-WS-A scenarios as well as the changing WS-A
specs.) Having such a critical component depend on XMLBeans
means pretty much means XMLBeans is bought into everywhere.
I personally don't want us to bite so hard into a particular
data binding technology. If you can't tell, I'm quite down on
databinding now :-).
> In general (not necessarily in this case
> though) I feel very sympathetic to making stuff run on more than one
> SOAP stack and would be a whole lot less concerned if there were actual
> usable & standard APIs for doing the data binding that would allow for
> easy portability between SOAP engines. In the absence of any such
> standards the only thing people can do is to pick a data binding
> technology/abstraction and integrate it with whatever message interface
> the SOAP stack provides.
Well for something like the EPR structures, there's really no
need to do "data binding" really. Those are pretty stable things,
esp. once the WS-Addr group finishes its work. Its perfectly
ok IMO to "hand bind" that stuff and be done with it. Or use a
tool that will generate code that does not have a runtime dep.
on some jar.
Sanjiva.
Re: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
Posted by Samuel Meder <me...@mcs.anl.gov>.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 07:52 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> In addition to these concerns, I'd like to discuss the rationale
> of generalizing WS-FX projects to support beyond Axis (and Axis2
> in the future). If that comes with no cost then of course its
> acceptable but if there's a cost its not acceptable IMO. Glen has
> also mentioned some concern about this.
>
> We need to have a general discussion on general@ws maybe before
> moving forward on any action motivated by "make it available to
> other SOAP stacks."
>
> BTW I would definitely object to having an XMLBeans dependency.
In ws-fx or in any ws project? In general (not necessarily in this case
though) I feel very sympathetic to making stuff run on more than one
SOAP stack and would be a whole lot less concerned if there were actual
usable & standard APIs for doing the data binding that would allow for
easy portability between SOAP engines. In the absence of any such
standards the only thing people can do is to pick a data binding
technology/abstraction and integrate it with whatever message interface
the SOAP stack provides.
/Sam
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com>
> To: "Springer, Ian P." <ia...@hp.com>
> Cc: <fx...@ws.apache.org>; <mu...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:29 AM
> Subject: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
>
>
> > Ian,
> >
> > Before we touch addressing. i feel i don't have a sense of what
> > everyone in Apollo/Hermes/Muse is upto. For example, i don't yet see
> > an effort to break out the WSN code. I don't see an effort to get the
> > projects built by Gump. I don't know how much of which specs are
> > already implemented. ...Can you all please address these concerns?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > dims
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:06:58 -0500, Springer, Ian P.
> > <ia...@hp.com> wrote:
> > > I would like to rewrite Addressing to use XMLBeans to represent the
> > > Addressing types instead of Axis-generated types. The main reason is to
> > > make the Addressing library portable to SOAP engines besides Axis.
> > > Axis-generated JAX-RPC types are not portable mainly because they use
> > > MessageElement instead of SOAPElement, and org.apache.axis.types.URI
> > > instead of String, throughout. Using XMLBeans would have other benefits
> > > as well. For instance, I would like to see Addressing support all three
> > > versions of the WS-Addressing schema (2003/03, 2004/03, amd 2004/08).
> > > The flexbility of XMLBeans would allow one to fairly easily support all
> > > three sets of types. Ideally, I'd like to make the impl smart enough to
> > > recognize two EPRs from different WS-A namespaces that refer to the same
> > > resource.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts? Any objection to having XMLBeans as a dependency?
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >
>
Re: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
Posted by Samuel Meder <me...@mcs.anl.gov>.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 07:52 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> In addition to these concerns, I'd like to discuss the rationale
> of generalizing WS-FX projects to support beyond Axis (and Axis2
> in the future). If that comes with no cost then of course its
> acceptable but if there's a cost its not acceptable IMO. Glen has
> also mentioned some concern about this.
>
> We need to have a general discussion on general@ws maybe before
> moving forward on any action motivated by "make it available to
> other SOAP stacks."
>
> BTW I would definitely object to having an XMLBeans dependency.
In ws-fx or in any ws project? In general (not necessarily in this case
though) I feel very sympathetic to making stuff run on more than one
SOAP stack and would be a whole lot less concerned if there were actual
usable & standard APIs for doing the data binding that would allow for
easy portability between SOAP engines. In the absence of any such
standards the only thing people can do is to pick a data binding
technology/abstraction and integrate it with whatever message interface
the SOAP stack provides.
/Sam
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com>
> To: "Springer, Ian P." <ia...@hp.com>
> Cc: <fx...@ws.apache.org>; <mu...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:29 AM
> Subject: Plan of action for the incubated projects (was Re: Addressing)
>
>
> > Ian,
> >
> > Before we touch addressing. i feel i don't have a sense of what
> > everyone in Apollo/Hermes/Muse is upto. For example, i don't yet see
> > an effort to break out the WSN code. I don't see an effort to get the
> > projects built by Gump. I don't know how much of which specs are
> > already implemented. ...Can you all please address these concerns?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > dims
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:06:58 -0500, Springer, Ian P.
> > <ia...@hp.com> wrote:
> > > I would like to rewrite Addressing to use XMLBeans to represent the
> > > Addressing types instead of Axis-generated types. The main reason is to
> > > make the Addressing library portable to SOAP engines besides Axis.
> > > Axis-generated JAX-RPC types are not portable mainly because they use
> > > MessageElement instead of SOAPElement, and org.apache.axis.types.URI
> > > instead of String, throughout. Using XMLBeans would have other benefits
> > > as well. For instance, I would like to see Addressing support all three
> > > versions of the WS-Addressing schema (2003/03, 2004/03, amd 2004/08).
> > > The flexbility of XMLBeans would allow one to fairly easily support all
> > > three sets of types. Ideally, I'd like to make the impl smart enough to
> > > recognize two EPRs from different WS-A namespaces that refer to the same
> > > resource.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts? Any objection to having XMLBeans as a dependency?
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: muse-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: muse-dev-help@ws.apache.org