I maybe wasn't clear. I don't think we should force this through
Axis2. I was just thinking it would be good to have an additional
binding to SOAP/Axis2 as a proof-point of any binding design, not
that the JMS work should be done through Axis2.
Jim
On Feb 13, 2006, at 3:27 PM, [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?
--
Jack Unrue
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
