You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@servicemix.apache.org by larry hughes <ty...@hotmail.com> on 2007/08/20 20:48:08 UTC
CXF integration
I've recently read on the Xfire site that they'd recommend using CXF instead,
probably due to the move of XFire's author to Mule. How does this affect
servicemix? Will the next servicemix depend on CXF instead of XFire for
jsr-181? Just wondering what the upgrade path will look like for WS down
the road.
Larry
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-tf4300789s12049.html#a12241701
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: CXF integration
Posted by dkulp <da...@kulp.com>.
Dan Diephouse being hired by Mule has no impact on that. CXF is basically
XFire 2.0. Dan D. is one of the leads on CXF with the goal being that CXF
is the "new version" of XFire. That is why XFire now recommends CXF.
In most cases, it is a "significant upgrade" from XFire 1.2.x. (although
there are some features in XFire that are still missing) Dan D. being
hired by Mule should not have a negative impact on CXF as part of his job at
Mule will be to integrate CXF into Mule.
In anycase, the goal is to replace the xfire stuff in ServiceMix with CXF
over time. There are definitely advantages to that. CXF is completely
JAX-WS certified. It passes the TCK's. It also passes the JSR181 TCK
(xfire does not). The spring configuration/integration in CXF is much
better than XFire's. The support for WS-* stuff is better in CXF.
Etc.....
Dan Kulp
daniel.kulp@iona.com
larry hughes wrote:
>
> I've recently read on the Xfire site that they'd recommend using CXF
> instead, probably due to the move of XFire's author to Mule. How does
> this affect servicemix? Will the next servicemix depend on CXF instead of
> XFire for jsr-181? Just wondering what the upgrade path will look like
> for WS down the road.
>
> Larry
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-tf4300789s12049.html#a12314585
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: CXF integration
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Well, I agree that contract first is a good option usually, though
the main drawback is that you have to learn wsdl and xml schema.
At the same time, both XFire and CXF completely supports the
contract first way (but also the code first if needed), and if look at
servicemix distribtion, one of the example is wsdl-first :-)
It shows how to expose a web service inside servicemix
using jaxws and a contract first approach.
So SWS is "contract first" approach is certainly not new ...
In ServiceMix, the role of a standard soap stack is split into two.
* a first part is handling the soap protocol and normalize the message
* the second part receives the normalized message and invokes
the POJOs (this is the part that converts xml to POJOs and the
opposite on the way back)
This separation is the key to decoupling in ServiceMix: you can use
the service inside the bus without needing to go over soap/http and
at the same time, you can expose the service over other transports
that are supported in JBI.
I must admit I haven't had a close look at SWS, but CXF has much more
feature than SWS at a glance, so I don't really see why you would spend
so much to rewrite something already exists and is already more powerful ;-)
Just my 2 cents...
On 8/24/07, larry hughes <ty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Guillaume,
>
> Actually the SWS is out of my control (another team has already begun using
> it). I'll eventually need to stick this into Servicemix as a Provider
> endpoint one way or another. In terms of the differences between CXF vs.
> SWS, it is the whole contract-first (SWS) vs. contract-last (CXF, JAX-WS,
> etc.) approach. There is a link here:
> http://static.springframework.org/spring-ws/site/why-contract-first.html
>
> I think there is a recent discussion about this on TSS as well. I'm fine
> with CXF but if developing web services is the bulk of the project, i.e. not
> just exposing existing Java services as web services, SWS is probably the
> best way to go. Maybe you have some thoughts on this?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> gnodet wrote:
> >
> > What would be the advantages of using SWS compared to CXF ?
> > CXF is fully JAXWS compliant and has much more features that SWS afaik.
> > And you can also use spring to configure it ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:13 PM, larry hughes wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That's great to hear. On a side topic, I have another team that is
> >> planning
> >> on providing their web services using the new Spring Web Service
> >> framework.
> >> Any ideas on how this fits into the servicemix scheme of things (BC/
> >> SE)
> >> since SWS is basically a replacement of CXF?
> >>
> >> Larry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> gnodet wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ServiceMix and CXF are already integrated, though there is still some
> >>> work going on.
> >>> Two new components will be available in 3.2, a binding component and
> >>> a service engine.
> >>> The SE will be the newer version of jsr181, while the BC is based on
> >>> CXF and thus will have support for Reliable Messaging, WS-Policy,
> >>> etc...
> >>>
> >>> If you were using JAX-WS annotated POJOs in jsr181, you should be
> >>> able to upgrade to servicemix-cxfse without too much problems
> >>> hopefully.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Guillaume Nodet
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 8:48 PM, larry hughes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I've recently read on the Xfire site that they'd recommend using
> >>>> CXF instead,
> >>>> probably due to the move of XFire's author to Mule. How does this
> >>>> affect
> >>>> servicemix? Will the next servicemix depend on CXF instead of
> >>>> XFire for
> >>>> jsr-181? Just wondering what the upgrade path will look like for
> >>>> WS down
> >>>> the road.
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry
> >>>> --
> >>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
> >>>> tf4300789s12049.html#a12241701
> >>>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
> >> tf4300789s12049.html#a12297855
> >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-tf4300789s12049.html#a12317115
> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
Re: CXF integration
Posted by larry hughes <ty...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Guillaume,
Actually the SWS is out of my control (another team has already begun using
it). I'll eventually need to stick this into Servicemix as a Provider
endpoint one way or another. In terms of the differences between CXF vs.
SWS, it is the whole contract-first (SWS) vs. contract-last (CXF, JAX-WS,
etc.) approach. There is a link here:
http://static.springframework.org/spring-ws/site/why-contract-first.html
I think there is a recent discussion about this on TSS as well. I'm fine
with CXF but if developing web services is the bulk of the project, i.e. not
just exposing existing Java services as web services, SWS is probably the
best way to go. Maybe you have some thoughts on this?
Larry
gnodet wrote:
>
> What would be the advantages of using SWS compared to CXF ?
> CXF is fully JAXWS compliant and has much more features that SWS afaik.
> And you can also use spring to configure it ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:13 PM, larry hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> That's great to hear. On a side topic, I have another team that is
>> planning
>> on providing their web services using the new Spring Web Service
>> framework.
>> Any ideas on how this fits into the servicemix scheme of things (BC/
>> SE)
>> since SWS is basically a replacement of CXF?
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>> gnodet wrote:
>>>
>>> ServiceMix and CXF are already integrated, though there is still some
>>> work going on.
>>> Two new components will be available in 3.2, a binding component and
>>> a service engine.
>>> The SE will be the newer version of jsr181, while the BC is based on
>>> CXF and thus will have support for Reliable Messaging, WS-Policy,
>>> etc...
>>>
>>> If you were using JAX-WS annotated POJOs in jsr181, you should be
>>> able to upgrade to servicemix-cxfse without too much problems
>>> hopefully.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 8:48 PM, larry hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've recently read on the Xfire site that they'd recommend using
>>>> CXF instead,
>>>> probably due to the move of XFire's author to Mule. How does this
>>>> affect
>>>> servicemix? Will the next servicemix depend on CXF instead of
>>>> XFire for
>>>> jsr-181? Just wondering what the upgrade path will look like for
>>>> WS down
>>>> the road.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
>>>> tf4300789s12049.html#a12241701
>>>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
>> tf4300789s12049.html#a12297855
>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-tf4300789s12049.html#a12317115
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: CXF integration
Posted by Nodet Guillaume <gn...@gmail.com>.
What would be the advantages of using SWS compared to CXF ?
CXF is fully JAXWS compliant and has much more features that SWS afaik.
And you can also use spring to configure it ;-)
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:13 PM, larry hughes wrote:
>
> That's great to hear. On a side topic, I have another team that is
> planning
> on providing their web services using the new Spring Web Service
> framework.
> Any ideas on how this fits into the servicemix scheme of things (BC/
> SE)
> since SWS is basically a replacement of CXF?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> gnodet wrote:
>>
>> ServiceMix and CXF are already integrated, though there is still some
>> work going on.
>> Two new components will be available in 3.2, a binding component and
>> a service engine.
>> The SE will be the newer version of jsr181, while the BC is based on
>> CXF and thus will have support for Reliable Messaging, WS-Policy,
>> etc...
>>
>> If you were using JAX-WS annotated POJOs in jsr181, you should be
>> able to upgrade to servicemix-cxfse without too much problems
>> hopefully.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 8:48 PM, larry hughes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've recently read on the Xfire site that they'd recommend using
>>> CXF instead,
>>> probably due to the move of XFire's author to Mule. How does this
>>> affect
>>> servicemix? Will the next servicemix depend on CXF instead of
>>> XFire for
>>> jsr-181? Just wondering what the upgrade path will look like for
>>> WS down
>>> the road.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
>>> tf4300789s12049.html#a12241701
>>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
> tf4300789s12049.html#a12297855
> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: CXF integration
Posted by larry hughes <ty...@hotmail.com>.
That's great to hear. On a side topic, I have another team that is planning
on providing their web services using the new Spring Web Service framework.
Any ideas on how this fits into the servicemix scheme of things (BC/SE)
since SWS is basically a replacement of CXF?
Larry
gnodet wrote:
>
> ServiceMix and CXF are already integrated, though there is still some
> work going on.
> Two new components will be available in 3.2, a binding component and
> a service engine.
> The SE will be the newer version of jsr181, while the BC is based on
> CXF and thus will have support for Reliable Messaging, WS-Policy, etc...
>
> If you were using JAX-WS annotated POJOs in jsr181, you should be
> able to upgrade to servicemix-cxfse without too much problems hopefully.
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 8:48 PM, larry hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> I've recently read on the Xfire site that they'd recommend using
>> CXF instead,
>> probably due to the move of XFire's author to Mule. How does this
>> affect
>> servicemix? Will the next servicemix depend on CXF instead of
>> XFire for
>> jsr-181? Just wondering what the upgrade path will look like for
>> WS down
>> the road.
>>
>> Larry
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
>> tf4300789s12049.html#a12241701
>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-tf4300789s12049.html#a12297855
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: CXF integration
Posted by Nodet Guillaume <gn...@gmail.com>.
ServiceMix and CXF are already integrated, though there is still some
work going on.
Two new components will be available in 3.2, a binding component and
a service engine.
The SE will be the newer version of jsr181, while the BC is based on
CXF and thus will have support for Reliable Messaging, WS-Policy, etc...
If you were using JAX-WS annotated POJOs in jsr181, you should be
able to upgrade to servicemix-cxfse without too much problems hopefully.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On Aug 20, 2007, at 8:48 PM, larry hughes wrote:
>
> I've recently read on the Xfire site that they'd recommend using
> CXF instead,
> probably due to the move of XFire's author to Mule. How does this
> affect
> servicemix? Will the next servicemix depend on CXF instead of
> XFire for
> jsr-181? Just wondering what the upgrade path will look like for
> WS down
> the road.
>
> Larry
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CXF-integration-
> tf4300789s12049.html#a12241701
> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>