That would be very cool... :-) On 12/30/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well we have open sourced the Arjuna WS-Context implementation, which was used as one of the specification reference implementations for compliance when writing the specification. It's not in a repo yet and we'd like to do more work on it in bringing it up to date: the specification changed a bit in the latter few months. Let me check. Maybe we can donate it ;-) I'd like to see WS-Context used more widely too. Mark. On 20 Dec 2006, at 17:43, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > +1 to having a CXF-based WS-Context implementation... > > IMHO this is one of the best specs in the WS space, simple and > powerful....Few years ago I was concerned about how to write > factory-based applications in the web services world...So one > option is to allocate a resource per every service which is not > acceptable for those pursuing coarser-grained approach, WS-Context > would help here too...Contexts do not necessarily have to be > transaction or security-related, they do not need to belong to > higher-level activities.... Something like 'orderId' is also a > context as it identifies a specific application activity, and as > such it can be passed as a WS-Context header....People can still > use a familiar factory pattern in the client code but under the > hood there'll be communicating with maximum 2 services.... > > Cheers, Sergey > > > >> >> On 12 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Sakala, Adinarayana wrote: >> >>> Hi Eric and Mark, >>> >>> It would be a great opportunity for CXF community and Apache to >>> participate in interop testing. I wish we had a WS-Context >>> implementation in place :) either we wrote or somebody has given >>> to us >>> to participate in the interop testing. Certainly something to >>> add to the >>> CXF roadmap for consideration in my opinion. >>> >>> First off, dumb question, Are there any issues with CXF >>> implementing or >>> supporting this oasis spec? >> >> No, the specifications are under a very loose IP policy: anyone >> can take the specifications and provide a compliant implementation. >> >>> >>> I will go read more about WS-Context to understand it more, but >>> here are >>> some questions that may be worth answering. >>> >>> Are there any specs that are similar to WS-Context? >> >> No. The only thing that comes close for session management would >> be WS-A and the use of ReferenceParameters. But if you check out >> one of the links I sent originally, you'll see why we think this >> is a very bad idea. >> >> >>> Can somebody comment on how this specification relates to >>> WS-ResourceFramework? >> >> Don't get me started on WS-RF ;-) I was one of the original >> supporters of that effort, but it's not a good example of SOA >> principles in Web Services! It's not related to WS-Context. >> >>> >>> Is SCA planning to leverage WS-Context spec? If so, it might be >>> worth >>> opening a dialogue with Tuscany folks, so that it is mutually >>> beneficial >>> for both the projects. >> >> There has been talk about how you could do sessions and >> conversations in SCA and WS-Context has come up several times as >> one way that is recommended. The recent specifications reference >> WS-Context as well. >> >>> >>> How widely is this spec adopted or used in the industry? (just >>> curious...) >> >> It's referenced by WS-A, SCA and several groups within OASIS. The >> interoperability effort is the last stop before making it a >> standard. It's supported by Oracle, Redhat, Fujitsu, Sun and >> IONA, to name a few. But without the official backing of IBM and >> MSFT it's always difficult to say in the world of Web Services ;-) >> >> >>> >>> Mark, Does RedHat have any plans on opensourcing WS-Context >>> implementation? >> >> Yes. It's already open sourced in that there is an older version >> covered by LGPL. However, it's not in any repository yet. >> >>> Asking this question because, there is no point in creating one >>> if reuse >>> is a possibility. I am sure CXF community would love to get one :) >> >> Understood. However, I believe the rules in Apache would preclude >> a dependency on any non-Apache licence code. True? >> >> Mark. >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Adi >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Newcomer, Eric >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:57 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: RE: WS-Context implementation >>>> >>>> Sorry - forgot to also mention the potential interest from SCA >>>> and/or >>>> Tuscany in the use of WS-Context for a way in which to manage >>> persistent >>>> sessions for Web services. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Newcomer, Eric >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:51 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: RE: WS-Context implementation >>>> >>>> As co-chair of the OASIS WS-CAF committee I'd like to mention the >>>> opportunity for CXF to participate in the interop testing for >>>> the most >>>> recent version of the WS-Context specification, found on the TC >>>> page >>>> (the link in Mark's email) as part of its progression toward OASIS >>>> standard. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mark Little [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:24 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: WS-Context implementation >>>> >>>> Has anyone considered doing a WS-Context (http://www.oasis- >>>> open.org/ >>>> committees/download.php/19659/WS-Context.zip) implementation for >>>> CXF? >>>> There's a pretty good write-up on it and its relationship to WS-A >>>> here >>> http://www.idealliance.org/proceedings/xml05/abstracts/paper54.HTML >>>> >>>> Mark. >
-- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
