Just to expand on this...... CXF DOES pass the JAX-WS TCK and that is definitely the primary target. However, WSI-BP compliance is also considered fairly important. The JAX-WS TCK actually does run a slew of tests to test many of the WSI-BP assertions so some level of BP compliance is important for any JAX-WS implementation.
However, I don't think anyone has gone through every single assertion in the BP spec to make sure we're 100% compliant with every single one. If an issue is found, we definitely would look into fixing it if at all possible (within the jaxws spec, of course), but there are a LOT of assertions in the spec so going through one by one is a huge undertaking. Specifically regarding mtom... CXF does support mtom and should be compliant with other mtom implementations and the BP specs. Dan On Tuesday 12 August 2008 10:46:47 pm Glen Mazza wrote: > bharath_t19 wrote: > > Thanks Glen.MTOM is a part of the WS-I Basic Profile 1.2.Is CXF compliant > > with this? > > Short answer: no. > > Long, mushy, politician's answer: CXF is compliant with the JAX-WS spec, > it can't serve two masters. Where the JAX-WS spec has shaped by the WS-I > Basic Profile (e.g., no rpc/encoded WSDL's allowed by the latter, so the > former doesn't permit it), the answer is "yes". But to the extent that > WS-I is really an issue about how humans code their web services, the > answer is "no"--CXF doesn't stop people from violating WS-I. Sometimes, > though, it *does* stop people from violating a WS-I rule even though it's > permitted by JAX-WS, for example here: > http://www.jroller.com/gmazza/date/20071019#notes (See note #1)--this is a > case where CXF's internal implementation relies on people not violating a > WS-I rule. > > Glen -- Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
