Guys, Just because you told us, we ripped out axiom and it is now in ws-commons :)
-- dims On 2/14/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Jim Marino wrote: > > > >>No problem that you are not Lance ;) I think a JMS binding > >>would be great. One of the work items we need to do is to > >>figure out a new binding strategy, particularly as we migrate > >>to Axis2. I think it would be a good idea to also validate this > >>against a JMS binding. I have the start of some ideas for that > >>I'll post to the list so we can begin discussion. I think the > >>binding work can be done in parallel to some of the changes we > >>are making in the proxy/wire/invocation/ builder layer. So, > >>when I'll try and write up those thoughts and we can discuss > >>in more detail. > > > > > > Sounds good. Dims has on a couple occasions invited me to get > > involved with Axis2, which is a fine idea, but I'm not sure why > > non-SOAP bindings such as JMS (or File, Email, etc) have to be > > integrated into Tuscany via a SOAP stack. Or am I misunderstanding > > what Axis2 is bringing to the table as far as Tuscany is > > concerned? > > > > I can see cases where an XML infoset is being sent over these type of > transport and I think Axis2 would provide a lot of infrastructure for > doing that. > > However, there will also be cases where a non-XML representation is > being used and other binding mechanisms would be more applicable. > > I think we need the flexibility here to support all these types of binding. > > -- > Jeremy > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
