The discussion has actually nothing to do with either CXF or Axis2 (nor with Dennis' article). I just hate it when people make misleading statements.
Andreas On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 00:35, Glen Mazza <[email protected]> wrote: > AS WAS 6.1 is built on Axis2, perhaps this thread would be better moved to > the Axis2 Dev list. > > Glen > > On 12/08/2010 06:29 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 22:58, Craig Tataryn<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2010-12-08, at 3:33 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Looks like you made the same mistake that I've seen elsewhere: instead >>>> of just installing the Web services feature pack on WAS 6.1 (to get >>>> JAX-WS support) and let the IBM support take care of the issues (after >>>> all that is what they are payed for), you spent your time trying to >>>> integrate another SOAP stack and solve the issues yourself. That being >>>> said, I don't know if the feature pack already existed when you did >>>> your project, and of course for a contractor that is the more >>>> interesting option (I would do the same in that position ;-). But OK, >>>> let's not transform this thread into a discussion about how to deploy >>>> Web services on WAS... >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I might have confused the article with another? I still stand by my >>> statements. I don't want to use "Webservices Pack for WAS". I want to use >>> "works regardless of servlet container and support contract". So it was not >>> a "mistake", I fully intended to avoid the Webservices Pack. >>> >>> Craig. >>> >> >> This is again a misleading statement. WAS 6.1 is a J2EE 1.4 compliant >> application server and the feature pack adds support for some parts of >> JEE5 (in the same way as they have a feature pack to upgrade from EJB >> 2.1 to 3.0). It doesn't tie you to a particular vendor (in contrast to >> what they had in WebSphere 5). So, "works regardless of servlet >> container" would really mean "doesn't use JEE5". There are indeed some >> arguments in favor of not using JEE5, including the quality of the >> implementation in a particular application server or the fact that for >> some projects, it doesn't provide enough flexibility. >> >> Andreas >> >> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 21:26, Craig Tataryn<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We were using WAS 6.1 and we needed to support HL7 payloads. Axis >>>>> wasn't up to snuff. Then trying to get modern versions of JAXB and XML >>>>> APIs >>>>> to work with WAS wasted soooooo much time and money. It was also a main >>>>> contributor to my hair greying at the tender age of 34. >>>>> >>>>> </rant> >>>>> >>>>> Craig. >>>>> >>>>> On 2010-12-08, at 2:15 PM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/09/2010 08:53 AM, Andreas Veithen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 14:40, Craig Tataryn<[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's great, his last article was very helpful at my last contract >>>>>>>> in saving me from implementing using "Web Services Pack for WAS" (aka >>>>>>>> Axis) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting statement. Dennis' last articles were all about >>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>> between CXF, Rampart and Metro. However, although IBM uses Axis2 as >>>>>>> the basis for their JAX-WS support in WAS 7.0 and in the Web services >>>>>>> feature pack for WAS 6.1, they're not using Rampart at all, but have >>>>>>> their own WS-Security implementation... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't worked with WAS myself, but thought that might be the case. >>>>>> That's why I qualify my own rankings of the stacks in the latest >>>>>> article >>>>>> with " Also, the rankings apply only to the base open source projects; >>>>>> commercial stacks based on the open source versions may use their own >>>>>> security code and other extensions. You'll need to look at the >>>>>> differences between the commercial code and the open source base to >>>>>> see >>>>>> which parts of the rankings may apply." >>>>>> >>>>>> Andreas, why don't you add a comment to the article pointing out that >>>>>> the rankings don't apply to WAS for this reason? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Dennis >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
