Just wanted to mention that Guillaume and I have been chatting a bit about the code on the CXF IRC channel today. He ran into some differences with various JAX-WS implementations:
http://irclogs.dankulp.com/logs/irclogger_log/cxf?date=2011-10-05,Wed&sel=128#l124 that required some "less clean" code. Nothing major. We also talked about the JMS stuff currently being tied to ActiveMQ and options around that: http://irclogs.dankulp.com/logs/irclogger_log/cxf?date=2011-10-05,Wed&sel=194#l190 That last stuff is definitely not critical (tied to ActiveMQ is perfectly fine for now as long as we mention that). Dan On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:13:15 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 18:01, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 5:22:01 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > I've started to re-architect the WS-Notification implementation to > > > get > > > > rid > > > > > of JBI and be pure JAX-WS based. > > > The results are available at https://github.com/gnodet/wsn . > > > I think there was a consensus to move the code base to CXF, but I > > > just > > > > want > > > > > to make sure everyone agree. > > > > I definitely agree. :-) Very excited about that prospect. :-) > > > > How close to ready is it? Is it something that we can get into CXF > > shortly > > for inclusion with CXF 2.5? > > The code is really the same than in ServiceMix, only the JBI bits have been > replaced by JAX-WS. > A few tests would definitely help, but the code base itself is mostly done. > I recall some users would have been interested in having more features like > complex topics or such, but not having those features does not mean the base > service is not usable. > > > > Also, I'd like to keep the implementation lightweight and keep it > > > pure > > > > JAXWS > > > > > based if possible. > > > > I'm quite a bit less excited about this. I would say pure jaxws + cxf- > > common-utilities is fine as it should likely use the CXF logging stuff, > > CXF XML utilities (DOMUtils, etc...), etc... duplicating stuff from > > common to just avoid a dep is silly to me. > > Yeah, I meant I'd like to be independent of the jaxws provider. > The code is currently using slf4j for logging though. > > > Dan > > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:20, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Just want to start a discussion on WS-Notification because I've > > > > had a > > > > chat last week with a ServiceMix user about that. > > > > > > > > That component is not heavily used, but we always have a few > > > > users > > > > reporting bugs and such. This component is really the only one > > > > which is no replacement in Camel. Given WS-Notification is > > > > really just an implementation of a WSDL, I wonder if it would > > > > be easier to simply port it to a pure CXF web service so that > > > > it would not be tied to JBI anymore, and would also solve a > > > > bunch of problems related to the behavior of > > > > WS-Addressing inside the JBI bus (which is not really what users > > > > expect when using WS-Notification). > > > > > > > > So I'd like to gauge the interest in re-architecting this > > > > component to make it more easily consumable without JBI / NMR, > > > > just as a JAX-WS web service (if possible even with no ties to > > > > CXF). We could then maybe plan a few enhancements such as > > > > the use of non simple topics definitions and such. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Open Source SOA > > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > -- > > Daniel Kulp > > [email protected] > > http://dankulp.com/blog > > Talend - http://www.talend.com -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://www.talend.com
