On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 19:45, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan (and Guillaume), > > I think it makes more sense to include WS-N in CXF. As the current > implementation is tied to ActiveMQ, I think it would required some > enhancement to: > - use a pure JMS implementation, allowing us to use ActiveMQ and any other > JMS broker (WebSphere MQ Series for instance) > Yes, we discussed that, but a few features that are not provided by a pure JMS layer are needed (mostly the ability to know when consumers on a give topic subscribe / unsubscribe, and also composite destinations). I think it's a definitely a nice to have to be able to work with another JMS broker in a degraded mode or something like that, but from a pure WS-Notification pov, it's really an implementation detail. > - use a fully OSGi compliant implementation > You mean be able to deploy it as a bundle, or something more than that ? I guess the main services could be exposed as OSGi services. > - be able to describe the WS-N endpoint (poll, etc) in Spring/Blueprint CXF > and in Camel > I'm not so sure about the real need. That was possible with the servicemix component, but afaik, most users used it in a pure web services standard way. But it should not be so difficult to add it back by leveraging jaxb. > > I'm ready to help on these topics ;) > > My 0.02$ > Regards > JB > > > On 10/05/2011 06:31 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> >> 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<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<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 >>>> >>> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
