Hi Tom; reagarding WSDL2 I agree 100% with paul, wsdl2 is important .. but we do not want to tie fate of Axis2 with wsdl2 .
And regarding WSDL1.x support I agree we need a WSDL generater .. may be we need to ship the WSDL1.x generation code of Axis with Axis2. Srinath On 9/25/05, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom > > While I understand that having a great implementation like Axis2 support > WSDL2.0 is going to be important to WSDL2.0, I think its dangerous to tie > them together. > > Here are my reasons: > > 1) WSDL 2.0 has taken far too long in the W3C for the marketplace. There is > a danger it may still drag out and not be finalised. > > 2) WSDL 1.x is still the de-facto standard, and since WS-* is about > INTEROPERABILITY, then if Axis2 is going to be useful in the real world, and > not just in proving WSDL2 is better, then it has to support WSDL 1.x, so we > have to prioritise that. > > 3) If I could see work going on with WSDL2.0 tooling support > (WSDL2Code/Code2WSDL), and there was a plan, I'd be happy to delay 1.0. But > I don't know of any such work. > > So I vote strongly that unless someone is willing to commit WSDL2.0 support > in a *very* short timeframe then we don't hold Axis2 releases up for it. > > Paul > > > On 9/25/05, Tom Jordahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I understand that WSDL 2.0 is not finished yet, I am on the working > > group. So is Sanjiva. But what I also know is that last call is over > > and we are about to enter the stage where the specification must have > > implementations before it can become final. I am expecting that Axis2 > > will be one of those ground breaking implementations. I would also note > > that WS-Addressing is not final either and yet we are still implementing > > that spec. > > > > Adding preliminary WSDL 2.0 support give lots of people reason to start > > working/playing with Axis2, giving us much more valuable input on the > > whole system in the process. > > > > I do agree that it would be better to add this support when there is a > > wsdl24j library available. > > > > As far as WSDL 1.1 support, I believe this is not something we can just > > blow off with a "use Axis 1.x" statement. The fact of the matter is, to > > many users, WSDL *is* web services. If Axis2 doesn't get it at least as > > good as the existing Axis, this will be bad. It will be a PR nightmare > > if people download Axis2 1.0 and it can't even generate WSDL from their > > Java code, or consume the same services when presented with a WSDL. > > > > This is obviously my personal opinion, and I realize that I an unable to > > put code where my mouth is these days. But believe me when I say I am > > very hopeful and excited that Axis2 will be even more successful than > > Axis is. But I know our customers/users pretty well, and they are going > > to be confused/unhappy if Axis2 doesn't solve the same problems for them > > as Axis1 *plus* add something more. "Better Architecture" doesn't sell > > software, even open source, free software. :-) > > > > Let's frame the discussion like this: Can you describe the user/customer > > that will download and use Axis2 (aka "user stories")? > > > > I'll start with me: > > I am using Axis 1.2 embedded in my commercial product to support Web > > Services. From the publishing side, I create dynamic Java classes on > > the fly and pass them to Axis to get the WSDL for my services. I use > > the Provider/Handler architecture to dispatch incoming requests to > > services written in a custom scripting language by my users. > > > > I also support consumption of web services from my scripting language. > > A user passes a WSDL URL in, along with the parameters to the operation. > > I generate Axis stubs under the covers and invoke the Java stubs to take > > care of all the work on the client side, converting the results to > > objects in the scripting language. > > > > I hear about a new version of Axis, name Axis2. I have had some > > problems with the document/literal support in Axis1 and the type mapping > > system has been giving me trouble. I also have heard there is a support > > for many of the specification (Addressing, WS-Security) that my users > > have been asking for baked right in to Axis2, along with better > > performance. Also the Axis1 team doesn't seem like they will be adding > > support for WSDL 2.0, so I am hoping that the new version give me that > > too. > > > > Question: How do you sell me on Axis2? Why am I switching to it (which > > isn't cheap as the APIs are not compatible)? What benefits do I get? > > > > > > -- > > Tom Jordahl > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Srinath Perera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 7:01 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Axis2] 1.0-alpha release > > > > did anybody use wsdl 2.0 for production? I know people will, but it is > > not a concern for the users right now. We relase for the real world .. > > to me holding axis2 out due to wsdl2 is unfair > > > > let us implemet the thing when spec is final, and wsdl4j equivalent > > comes out. I see know reason we need to dealy Axis2 for wsdl2. > > > > reagrding alpha vs .9x, alpha states that Axis2 1.0 near .. I belive > > features shouldnot change across alpha beta ..final ..so they are > > differernt from the 9.x > > > > Srinath > > > > On 9/24/05, Dennis Sosnoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Steve Loughran wrote: > > > > > > > Tom Jordahl wrote: > > > > > > > >> I would say that any Axis2 1.0 would have to fully support WSDL 1.1 > > > >> and WSDL 2.0 generation (from Java) and consumption (to Java). I > > > >> don't think we are there yet, particularly on the WSDL 2.0 front. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I would much rather release early/often with a .92, .93, .95, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be a better approach. A point number to mean "ready to > > > > use", a value <1.0. > > > > I note that there is a very large number of floating point values > > > > between 0.92 and 1.0 > > > > > > +1 to .92 - in my interpretation, all the releases to this point have > > > been alpha releases. If the progressive version numbering suddenly > > > changes to "1.0 alpha" it's just going to confuse potential users. I'd > > > prefer to stick with .9X until a solid 1.0 release candidate is > > available. > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > >
