Your views of mollusks are about the same as mine. We used Aegis to avoid classpath dependencies in shared code until very recently. At which point I sadly decided that I could live with the default, unannotated behavior of JAXB at least until I could help remove a few more bugs from Aegis.
An important distinction: I'm very unperturbed by JAX-WS, since those objects are completely specific to the web service, and snails don't bother me on them. Aegis' appealed to me as de-snailing the ordinary objects that we were shipping to and fro. Thus, my inclination to spend a lot more time on Aegis issues that are unrelated to methods. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 4:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run? > > > Not dropping anything sounds good to me. > > While I've used JAXB and JibX, my buddy over here is the one who looked > at Aegis a while back when we first checked out Xfire and he liked what > he saw. He is on vacation so I can't give you details on that one at > this time. Well, other than annotations, since you asked, which from now > on I will refer to as snails. > > There are a some of us who are "not fond" of them. The "not fondness", > however, is "not occasional." There are a number of reasons for that, > including the depojoisation (I just made that up) of pojos. > > What if the objects are used in multiple contexts, like ours are? Do you > annotate it twice? Aegis, with its nice external mapping files works. We > have the same issues with snailing web service endpoints. Who says you > have only have one WS incarnation of a java service? > > I have other issues with snailing, too. > > I'll make a note to get the details on Aegis from my buddy whan he is > back and get you some more details, if there are any. > > Brian > > -->-----Original Message----- > -->From: Benson Margulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -->Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:45 AM > -->To: [email protected] > -->Subject: RE: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run? > --> > -->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 > -->> -->> > -->> -->> > -->> --> > -->> --> > -->
