I've a question for the CXF developers. To quickly introduce myself, I'm
the chair of the W3C WG for SOAP/JMS [1].
We're at the point where we want to declare a "Proposed Recommendation"
(PR) for what is currently our "working draft" [2]. For those
unfamiliar, that's the step before declaring something an actual W3C
official "Recommendation." [4]
To achieve this milestone, we simply need to have two implementations of
the specification. More specifically, we need two implementations of
each and every normative statement of the specification - even those
normative statements that are optional.
From work I've done looking at the source code and the samples, it
appears that CXF falls into that category. Of particular concern, we're
curious about the WSDL extension elements that we've defined, in part
because some of the vendors we've talked to have indicated that they
will not be supporting such extension elements.
In any case, I'm looking for some sort of public statement from the CXF
developers about each the normative statements ("assertions") [3] from
the spec, and whether each is covered by the CXF implementation. Since
the specification has changed slightly since the last working draft -
mostly to clarify the assertions, and fix some oversights - it would
actually be useful to know about CXF with respect to our latest working
copy, and its assertions [5], and that either or both will do.
Can anyone comment?
Thanks!
-Eric Johnson
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-soapjms-20101026/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-soapjms-20101026/#assertionsummary
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance
[5]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#assertionsummary
