> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 17 January 2007 10:46
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: WS-RM interop
> 
> Can I just check: are we talking about OASIS WS-RM, OASIS 
> WS-RX, WS-Reliability or WS-Reliable Messaging (WS-RM)?


Well we're not yet taking about OASIS WS-RX (AKA WS-RM 1.1). We'll look
at supporting this once the new spec is finalized.

Neither are we talking about the rival WS-Reliability spec, backed by
the Sun/Fujitsu/Hitachi/Oracle/NEC/Sonic camp. And I guess OASIS WS-RM
is really just the 1.1 version of this. We never planned support for
either version. 

What we are talking about currently is the WS-ReliableMessaging 1.0 spec
[1], as backed by the BEA/IBM/MicroSoft/TIBCO camp.

Cheers,
Eoghan

[1]
ftp://www6.software.ibm.com/software/developer/library/ws-reliablemessag
ing200502.pdf

> Mark.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glynn, Eoghan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wed 1/17/2007 4:16 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: WS-RM interop
>  
> 
> 
> Hi Guillaume,
> 
> This is definitely something we need to do, especially in the 
> light of the recent extended discussion about partial 
> responses, and the minor modifications identified to allow 
> for wider interop (tolerance to Systinet partial response 
> with response code 200, usage of null content-type to 
> indicate an empty HTTP entity-body etc...).
> 
> I'm going to capture these mods in a JIRA issue. We'll 
> probably need to close that off first, then look at doing the 
> actual interop testing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guillaume Nodet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 16 January 2007 17:51
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: WS-RM interop
> > 
> > Has anyone tried CXF WS-RM implementation interoperability 
> with other 
> > existing implementations ? .Net, Axis2, etc ...
> > 
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> > ------------------------
> > Architect, LogicBlaze (http://www.logicblaze.com/)
> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > 
> 
> 

Reply via email to