I'm unaware of any plan to drop anything. Some parts of Aegis, however, get more attention than others. The parts of Aegis that seem pretty hard to distinguish from JAXB, in particular. Could you comment on why you prefer Aegis to JAXB? Do you share my occasional dislike of snails in your code (@)?
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run? > > > Glen, > > First, thanks for the response. > > But next I can't quite resist pointing out that you didn't really answer > my question ;-) > > Your points on security are well taken! Our little piece of the business > does not handle HIPAA data, at the moment. (I guess you noticed the > "Healthcare" part of my sig!) We deal with non-patient-specific > reference data, although one never knows what will come on down the > line. > > We do have strict security requirements, however. I had typed up much of > a detailed response explaining our situation, but realized this is > likely not the right forum for that. Perhaps you can trust, for the sake > of argument, that I understand the security issues involved and that we > already have extensive security infrastructure that will be baked into > whatever toolkit we choose (or into which we'll bake a new toolkit), > along with adding support for all the new, fun WS-EtcEtcEtc stuff. The > same goes for lots of other things one needs for a real system: logging, > monitoring, management, updates, configuration, pizza delivery, etc. > > There are some cases where, indeed, "shoving a bunch of unannotated > classes to CXF" will be the quickest way to get things done - given that > the simple model has the extension/integration points we need. Which is > something I still need to check out. But all that would be moot if the > simple model is not long for this world. > > Does this help? > > Thanks again! > > Brian > > P.S. Oh yeah, and there will definitively be situations where the simple > model is not adequate. > > -->-----Original Message----- > -->From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -->Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:05 PM > -->To: [email protected] > -->Subject: Re: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run? > --> > -->Brian, are you handling HIPAA data? Then I would forget > -->about the simple frontend. It's not intended for that. > --> > -->For good, rigorous coding of Privacy Act/HIPAA data, you > -->should be starting with WSDL-first development.[1][2] That > -->will give you the needed experience later when you need to > -->implement security. Don't want to start with WSDL though? > -->OK, then do JAX-WS Java-first with annotations. It really > -->isn't that much harder than the simple frontend. > --> > -->Doing either of the above also helps portability--you can > -->switch much more quickly to Metro (or Axis2, to an extent) > -->if you need to for whatever reason. > --> > -->But just shoving a bunch of unannotated classes to CXF and > -->hoping it will choose the right methods to expose and the > -->right ones not to does not sound very secure. I don't need > -->to tell you that. > --> > -->Regards, > -->Glen > --> > -->[1] http://www.jroller.com/gmazza/date/20071019 > -->[2] http://www.javapassion.com/handsonlabs/wswsdl/ > --> > --> > -->Am Montag, den 29.10.2007, 15:25 -0600 schrieb > -->[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > -->> Hi, > -->> > -->> I'm taking a look at web service frameworks. I've played > -->with Sun's > -->> impl of JAX-WS. I've played with (and rejected) Axis2. I'm > -->about to > -->> play with CFX, I've browsed through the docs, but had a > -->question that > -->> I could not find explicitly discussed. Is the "simple" > -->model here to stay? > -->> > -->> Perhaps my question is addressed somewhere and I've just > -->blown past it. > -->> Much of the documentation seems to center around the > -->JAX-WS front end > -->> and relatively little is written about the simple front > -->end. Perhaps > -->> because it is so... simple? ;-) One reason I am interested > -->in CFX is > -->> because of the simple model it supports. We do need to support > -->> standards, but in some cases we would like to turn existing > -->> non-trivial code into web services as easily as possible. > -->Not having > -->> to annotate would be a good thing for a couple of reasons. > -->> > -->> If we were interested in CFX in part because of the simple > -->model, are > -->> we "safe" going with CFX? In other words, are the simple > -->model and the > -->> Aegis data binding (which we liked when we looked into it) > -->going to be > -->> around for the long haul, or will CFX evolve into a (good) > -->JAX-WS impl > -->> while dropping support for simple/Aegis? > -->> > -->> Thanks for consideration of my "newbie" question! > -->> > -->> Brian > -->> > -->> Brian D. Horblit > -->> Senior Principal Engineer > -->> Thomson Healthcare > -->> > -->> > --> > -->
