You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by robert <ro...@gliesian.com> on 2011/02/24 16:48:16 UTC
SOAP over JMS and CXF.
CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
Thanks!
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Hi
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:48 PM, robert <ro...@gliesian.com> wrote:
> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>
> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be better
> suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>
> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
Yes but only JAX-RS endpoints will support WADL. The actual endpoint
may be JMS enabled but the generated WADLs will be of interest to
HTTP-aware consumers only. CXF JAX-RS endpoints can get the JMS
messages routed to them but JMS messages containing SOAP-over-JMS
properties are not supported. You might want to have a look at the
jaxrs-http-jms demo in the Talend SF 2.3.2.0 examples [1], plain JMS
API is currently used on the client side, though in theory we can use
JAX-RS proxies alongside with WADL extensions...
cheers, Sergey
[1] http://www.talend.com/resources/documentation.php
>
> Thanks!
>
>
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Glen Mazza <gm...@talend.com>.
Yes, of course. Certainly, apologies to Bill for any (highly) false
pretense I may have given that I'm a better developer than he.
Glen
On 2/25/2011 3:28 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Glen,
>
> Please lighten up. I really don't think these types of attacks are
> appropriate here. Thise seems more like the Axis list response than a CXF
> list response, and that's not a good thing IMO.
>
> In general, if a user on a CXF list has a problem that is better met with a
> competing product, I'm a firm believer that:
>
> 1) We SHOULD let the user know about that. At the end of the day, the user has
> a problem that they need a solution for. If that means using something else,
> I'm OK with that.
>
> BUT:
>
> 2) We should figure out WHY the other solution is better and determine if it's
> something we can address in CXF. Possibly log some JIRA's or something.
>
>
> Anyway, please try to keep things more cordial and pleasant.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Friday 25 February 2011 10:01:52 AM Glen Mazza wrote:
>> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
>> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
>> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
>> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
>> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
>> things are rotting out at home.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
>>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>>
>>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>>> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>>> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
>>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>>
>>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>>>
>>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>>> trouble.
>>>>
>>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
--
Glen Mazza
Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Glen,
Please lighten up. I really don't think these types of attacks are
appropriate here. Thise seems more like the Axis list response than a CXF
list response, and that's not a good thing IMO.
In general, if a user on a CXF list has a problem that is better met with a
competing product, I'm a firm believer that:
1) We SHOULD let the user know about that. At the end of the day, the user has
a problem that they need a solution for. If that means using something else,
I'm OK with that.
BUT:
2) We should figure out WHY the other solution is better and determine if it's
something we can address in CXF. Possibly log some JIRA's or something.
Anyway, please try to keep things more cordial and pleasant.
Thanks!
Dan
On Friday 25 February 2011 10:01:52 AM Glen Mazza wrote:
> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
> things are rotting out at home.
>
> Glen
>
> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
> > That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
> > and pray its compatible with CXF?
> >
> > Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
> > code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
> > interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
> > that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
> > interface with a fully featured messaging API.
> >
> > I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
> > whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
> >
> > http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
> >
> > On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
> >> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
> >> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
> >> trouble.
> >>
> >> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
> >>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
> >>>
> >>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
> >>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
> >>>
> >>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Glen Mazza <gm...@talend.com>.
Well, I was hoping the glowing review I gave your book
(http://www.jroller.com/gmazza/entry/book_review_restful_java_with)
would result in additional sales and hence additional assistants for you
to close the bugs I reported (if not early retirement for yourself :);
if not, well, I appreciate you looking and closing them for me now.
Thanks,
Glen
On 2/25/2011 11:35 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
> Wow, you're funny. CXF has 255 unresolved bugs, does this mean they are
> rotting at the core as well?
>
> FYI, half your bugs weren't even bugs. The others were minor example
> errors. I apologize your bug reports weren't given my immediate full
> attention, no matter how minor (or nonexistent) they were.
>
> On 2/25/11 10:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
>> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
>> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
>> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
>> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
>> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
>> things are rotting out at home.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
>>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>>
>>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>>> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>>> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
>>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>>
>>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>>>
>>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>>> trouble.
>>>>
>>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
--
Glen Mazza
Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Actually, Glen, looks like I've misread your comments as I always do,
sorry :-). But of course I'd still encourage us all to discuss
RestEasy issues on the RestEasy list where I'm a subscriber too :-)
Cheers, Sergey
2011/2/25 Bill Burke <bb...@redhat.com>:
> Wow, you're funny. CXF has 255 unresolved bugs, does this mean they are
> rotting at the core as well?
>
> FYI, half your bugs weren't even bugs. The others were minor example
> errors. I apologize your bug reports weren't given my immediate full
> attention, no matter how minor (or nonexistent) they were.
>
> On 2/25/11 10:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
>> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
>> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
>> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
>> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
>> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
>> things are rotting out at home.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
>>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>>
>>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>>> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>>> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
>>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>>
>>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>>>
>>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>>> trouble.
>>>>
>>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Bill Burke <bb...@redhat.com>.
Wow, you're funny. CXF has 255 unresolved bugs, does this mean they are
rotting at the core as well?
FYI, half your bugs weren't even bugs. The others were minor example
errors. I apologize your bug reports weren't given my immediate full
attention, no matter how minor (or nonexistent) they were.
On 2/25/11 10:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
> things are rotting out at home.
>
> Glen
>
> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>
>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>>
>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>
>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>>
>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>> trouble.
>>>
>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>
>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>
>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Nearly lost the message from Willem...
>>>
>>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>>> trouble
Yes indeed. On the server side it's easy. We can have say 3 endpoints
sharing the same bean, one SOAP-based endpoint for getting SOAP-over
JMS message, the other one is a JAX-RS endpoint for getting HTTP
messages and yet another one for getting JMS messages. And a single
bean instance. Then on the client side, we have SOAP proxies, plain
JMS clients which will post to JAX-RS endpoints. HTTP clients will not
use the JMS-kind of language, they will be able to query easily but
the only limitation there is that such HTTP clients will have to check
statuses rigorously and do few other tricks to ensure messages get
delivered, if itsd required...
Sergey
.
>>>>
>>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Glen Mazza
>> Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
>> blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Bill Burke <bb...@redhat.com>.
On 2/25/11 10:51 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
> In your opinion, why would such (Java) users prefer an HTTP centric
> interface for consuming messages backed up by JMS stores, when they
> just can do plain Java JMS ?
>
> What do you think ?
>
(Remember you asked what I think so....)
I don't think people should use CXF nor Resteasy nor SOAP if their
environment is all Java. As you said, use native Java JMS protocols.
The benefit of using a Messaging RESTful interface is for, IMO, to
provide lightweight inter-language/platform support. If you check out
the HornetQ rest examples, specifically Python ones, you'll see they use
the built in http client that comes with the language and nothing else.
Through content-negotiation and JAX-RS providers we also support
transformation of JMS client sent Java objects into the representation
the REST client desires. And vice versa, unmarshalling of
representations to Java objects using JAX-RS.
As a side note, I'll eventually be pulling out the API into a
specification. Probably submitting it as an Internet Draft at IETF so
we can leverage a neutral and respected entity's specification process.
That way, anybody could implement and support it.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>>
>>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>
> If people using HornetQ as a messaging solution could plugin CXF
> JAX-RS to back up your interface then I'd be the first one who would
> blog about it and promote it. On CXF lists we discuss CXF-based issues
> or solutions.
HornetQ REST could probably be ported quite easily to CXF as most of it
is pure JAX-RS (minus config and the client framework). Honestly, from
the client perspective it has nothing to do with CXF or Resteasy. The
client is free and encouraged to use any HTTP client framework in any
language they desire.
I think its fair to suggest to somebody asking about JMS integration
solutions other than CXF. We encourage such posts on resteasy mail
list. For example, I always defer to Jersey regardings WADL as I have
zero interest in implementing or supporting it.
I'll shut up now, unless you want to talk more about JMS/REST/Messaging
anymore.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Hi Guys
Come on, this is not a RESTEasy or HornetQ mailing list.
More comments inline
2011/2/25 Glen Mazza <gm...@talend.com>:
> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
> things are rotting out at home.
I'm not following how it is going to help CXF JAX-RS ? Why don't
discuss it on the RestEasy list ?
>
> Glen
>
> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>
>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
This is the only comment which I can try and put into the CXF context.
CXF SOAP users offers a different view via proxies. They don't write
JMS/messaging-centric code, they write service.addBook(),
service.getBook(). It's a different approach.
Now, Talend Service and Integration Factory distributions show how
plain JMS-centric consumers can talk against CXF JAX-RS endpoints. The
consumers are just plain Java JMS consumers writing basic and simple
JMS code.
In your opinion, why would such (Java) users prefer an HTTP centric
interface for consuming messages backed up by JMS stores, when they
just can do plain Java JMS ?
What do you think ?
>>
>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>
>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
If people using HornetQ as a messaging solution could plugin CXF
JAX-RS to back up your interface then I'd be the first one who would
blog about it and promote it. On CXF lists we discuss CXF-based issues
or solutions.
Please don't get me wrong Bill :-). I respect your work, I linked to
HornetQ because their slogan is cool and RestEasy from my blog, and
perhaps we can try and arrange some kind of interop event, say with
CXF JAX-RS consuming HornetQ services, but at the moment it's nothing
to do with CXF.
cheers, Sergey
>>
>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>> trouble.
>>>
>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>
>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>
>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> --
> Glen Mazza
> Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
> blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
>
>
>
Re: [onlist is fine!] Re: [offlist] Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Hi All
I honestly don't understand why this thread hasn't died out yet.
IMHO (after rereading for the 3 time) what was meant to be a subtle
though a bit too over-elaborate remark involving the reference to the
Russian Tsar and the not so healthy core and which I read as an
attempt to protect the role of CXF in the SOAP-over-JMS thread, ended
up being seen nearly as a personal attack on Bill or RestEasy.
While a better phrase could've been used or simply not used at all, I
think the reference to the core needs to be taken in the context of
the phrase. I'm nearly sure there's some business book out there which
uses phrases like that. I misread his comment during the first read
and I didn't pay any attention to the number of RestEasy JIRAs
mentioned by Glen. RestEasy is a big and successful project and we all
know it's used extensively.
Glen shown a lot of respect to Bill by reviewing his book, and running
all the samples against RestEasy and contributing to the project by
creating JIRAs.
Sergey
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Glen Mazza <gm...@talend.com> wrote:
> You don't have to go off-list for this, Jeff. Besides my emails[1] aren't
> that bad, hardly trolling. There was no malice in what I had written (for I
> have a significant amount of respect for Bill), it was just meant as a
> playful kick back at Bill at 8:01am this morning at what I misperceived as a
> snarky dig at CXF (and as Bill later showed, he was more than able to kick
> back in return). We all overstep slightly now and then, this is the dev
> list.
>
> Glen
>
> [1]
> http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=user_nodes&user=148307
>
> On 2/25/2011 11:51 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>> Glenn,
>>
>> Whats up with the trolling on the lists? You have been rubbing folks the
>> wrong way and taking shots at people and its getting rather disheartening.
>> Glenn, my personal statement to you is a request to stop the pot shots as it
>> makes this project look ghetto. I'm CCing Dan since he is the PMC chair as
>> I think he needs to keep an eye on this.
>>
>> Also, I recommend that you get yourself a gmail email address because
>> taking shots on the list with a talend.com address doesn't give your company
>> good credence as a representative.
>>
>> Please chill out and breathe before pushing the send button. Feel free to
>> hit me up on IRC if you need to discuss.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
>>
>>> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
>>> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
>>> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
>>> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
>>> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
>>> things are rotting out at home.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>>
>>> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
>>>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>>>
>>>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>>>> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>>>> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
>>>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>>>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>>>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>>>
>>>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>>>>
>>>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>>>> trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Glen Mazza
>>> Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
>>> blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Glen Mazza
> Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
> blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
>
>
>
[onlist is fine!] Re: [offlist] Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Glen Mazza <gm...@talend.com>.
You don't have to go off-list for this, Jeff. Besides my emails[1]
aren't that bad, hardly trolling. There was no malice in what I had
written (for I have a significant amount of respect for Bill), it was
just meant as a playful kick back at Bill at 8:01am this morning at what
I misperceived as a snarky dig at CXF (and as Bill later showed, he was
more than able to kick back in return). We all overstep slightly now
and then, this is the dev list.
Glen
[1]
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=user_nodes&user=148307
On 2/25/2011 11:51 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Glenn,
>
> Whats up with the trolling on the lists? You have been rubbing folks the wrong way and taking shots at people and its getting rather disheartening. Glenn, my personal statement to you is a request to stop the pot shots as it makes this project look ghetto. I'm CCing Dan since he is the PMC chair as I think he needs to keep an eye on this.
>
> Also, I recommend that you get yourself a gmail email address because taking shots on the list with a talend.com address doesn't give your company good credence as a representative.
>
> Please chill out and breathe before pushing the send button. Feel free to hit me up on IRC if you need to discuss.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
>
>> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
>> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
>> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
>> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
>> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
>> things are rotting out at home.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
>>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>>
>>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>>> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>>> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
>>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>>
>>> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>>>
>>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>>> trouble.
>>>>
>>>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Glen Mazza
>> Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
>> blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
>>
>>
--
Glen Mazza
Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Glen Mazza <gm...@talend.com>.
Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
things are rotting out at home.
Glen
On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
> That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>
> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
> code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
> interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>
> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>
> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
>
> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>> trouble.
>>
>> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>>
>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>
>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
--
Glen Mazza
Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Bill Burke <bb...@redhat.com>.
That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
and pray its compatible with CXF?
Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
interface with a fully featured messaging API.
I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
> trouble.
>
> 2011/2/24, robert<ro...@gliesian.com>:
>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>>
>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>
>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
trouble.
2011/2/24, robert <ro...@gliesian.com>:
> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>
> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>
> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
--
从我的移动设备发送