> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 2007?3?15? 21:44 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Release Update > > > Hi Jervis, > > I wanted to ensure that we can setup an endpoint on a URL and route to > different services based on headers (such as ws-a) or other > logic. I made a > series of proposals about how to do this a while back, but I > don't think we > ever came to any concrete conclusion. > Ok, I see what you mean. I believe you are referring to this proposal [1]. One thing I have not figured out from the proposal yet is how we know the addresses of services to which the routing service is about to redirect? Through some kind of registries or a configuration loaded from a separate file or a WSDL extension.? Once this kind of discussion gets started, I do not see how it can end by the end of this release. Service routing is a huge topic anyway. However we will have much less to worry about if we are not after a complete resolution of service routing. For example, if we only support the routing among different endpoints within the same Destination, would this feature be considered helpful for some certain use cases? Reading your proposal, I believe this is also what you want to do, start from sth simple first. If this is the case, I am ready to get my hands dirty now.
BTW, I am in a traveling at the moment, I may not respond in time until I get back to office next Tuesday. [1]. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/200612.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > My main motivation for want to get this in before the release > is that I feel > it might change our APIs or their behavior. > > - Dan > > On 3/14/07, Liu, Jervis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, I have some free time this month and I can pick up > either the XML > > Catalogs story (provide a more complete support for XML > Catalogs, which is > > part of our JAX-WS compliance stories) or I can start > working on the service > > routing story first as Dan has listed below, if we think > the service routing > > is a more important feature for this release. Dan, could you please > > elaborate on the details of service routing, like the > requirement and > > expectation for this release. I presume its something > related to XFire > > service routing migration, right? Thanks. > > > > Cheers, > > Jervis > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 2007?3?12? 6:21 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Release Update > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > We're getting to the point that I think we're closing in > on our next > > > release. So I'd like to recap the big issues that are > > > outstanding that I > > > see: > > > > > > - WS-Security & SecureConversation & Trust - I would really > > > really like to > > > see us be able to support this for interop with WCF. > > > - Tooling refactoring > > > (this includes cleanup of java2wsdl in runtime, I want > to see wsdl > > > generation using the service model from our service > factories before a > > > release) > > > - JAX-WS TCK Testing (see below) > > > - CXF-28: Nice XML - we should finish moving away from our > > > property editors > > > to spring 2.0 handlers > > > - We have no service routing story or examples > > > - schema duplication in common/metacode? > > > - Other open JIRAs > > > > > > We are also in BIG need of documentation. Specifically: > > > - Using Spring 2.0 config syntax > > > - HTTP Transport > > > - WS-RM > > > - WS-Policy > > > - XFire migration docs > > > - Using Aegis databinding > > > - Using WSDL2Java & Java2WSDL in Maven & Ant > > > > > > At this point I see the following features probably being > > > pushed to 2.1: > > > - WSDL 2.0 support > > > - XMLBeans support (this may or may not be possible to > > > integrate in as part > > > of the Aegis module, the big question is tooling - any > volunteers?) > > > - Any other WS-* work > > > > > > Re: JAX-WS - Can someone do some legwork and check if Apache > > > will let us do > > > a 2.0 final release without passing the TCK? Then we can > > > focus on passing > > > the TCK for 2.1. This would involve starting a discussion on > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we are positioning ourselves as > just a JAX-WS > > > implementation I can see how they wouldn't let us do release. > > > But I think > > > there are a lot of uses which don't center around JAX-WS that > > > we focus on. > > > For instance, there are a lot of XFire users who aren't using > > > the JAX-WS > > > features and so I would like to get them migrating ASAP so I > > > can consolidate > > > bug fixes in one place. As long as we're clear that > compliance is not > > > claimed we should be ok. > > > > > > What other items do people see? > > > > > > I think we should target starting a vote by March 30th, but > > > we have a fair > > > amount to do before then I think you can see. Please claim > > > any JIRA issues > > > you intend to tackle so its easier to see who is planning on > > > working on > > > what. I'm incredibly excited to get a new release out. CXF is > > > looking great > > > and its time for the world to really start using it! > > > > > > (BTW, I am focusing in on the security specifications > this week unless > > > someone else wants to volunteer. I could definitely spend > > > some more time on > > > routing or Aegis instead) > > > > > > - Dan > > > -- > > > Dan Diephouse > > > Envoi Solutions > > > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog > > > > > > > > > -- > Dan Diephouse > Envoi Solutions > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog >
