Benson, I'm not sure I understand your last point about unrelated to methods. Do you want me to take this off the mailing list and tell you at your personal email a bit more about my annotation issues with JAX-WS? I'm a bit reluctant to clog the list with a this off-topic discussion (but I might learn something that mitigates my feelings about annotations).
Brian -->-----Original Message----- -->From: Benson Margulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -->Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 4:33 PM -->To: [email protected] -->Subject: RE: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run? --> -->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 -->> -->> -->> -->> -->> -->> -->> -->> --> -->> -->> --> -->> --> -->
