The issue isn't the provider side, it's the consumer side. I thought
the whole point of ESB was that I can provide a myriad of provider BCs
eventually getting to a service implementation. For example, I could
configure my JBI XyzConsumerVMBC to route to an XyxProviderHessianBC.
The point being I don't want to have to go through another
transformation; I want to be able to have my client retrieve (or have an
implementation injected) a POJO implementation of an interface and not
care where the true implementation is. I want my client to invoke a
method on a Java interface and not care what the implementation is. If
I have to use JMS, I'm locked into JMS.
Using Spring's remoting solutions, I can, through configuration only,
have my client code to an interface, the implementation I retrieve via
the ApplicationContext, and choose a variety of (java-oriented)
protocols. If I want a concrete implementation, my ApplicationContext
refers to a local implementation. If I need a remote implementation, I
use the appropriate remoting solution. I want the same freedom in
ServiceMix. Is what I diagrammed in the original post adequate, or is
there a better way?
Philip Dodds wrote:
This looks more akin to using JAX-WS to generate a SOAP interface,
once you have a WSDL for you SOAP interface you can use JAXB 2.0 to
generate a set of POJO's so that you can call the SOAP interface
through a POJO. You might find this approach better than developing a
specific BC for it. You might want to have a look at the stuff James
has done on WS-Notification where he is using JAX-WS and JAXB 2:
See http://www.servicemix.org/WS+Notification, and also
http://servicemix.org/maven/ws/jaxws/wspojo/apidocs/org/servicemix/wspojo/notification/package-summary.html
<http://servicemix.org/maven/ws/jaxws/wspojo/apidocs/org/servicemix/wspojo/notification/package-summary.html>
and
http://servicemix.codehaus.org/maven/ws/jaxws/wspojo/apidocs/index.html.
Cheers
P
On 9/29/05, *Chris* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Is it reasonable to create a BC that is basically a specific VM
interface? The way I see it, is why go through another
transformation (e.g. JMS) rather than just create a specific BC
for the interface in question.
Am I missing something? Or is this an appropriate use of ServiceMix?
