Hi Josh, I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with dOSGi.
Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc? And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense? i.e. if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely unchanged OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS server-side application from the get-go? Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to think through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's more intrusive than Aegis/simple. Cheers, Eoghan 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <[email protected]>: > I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing questions about his > RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question, and rather > than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF community a crack > at it. > > I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding strategy to use > with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired". I recognize > that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the developer > from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make sense for > cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions right after > the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?"). > > The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not easily usable > cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a wsdl that > specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example. > > Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be configurable in > the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work on a patch. > > [1] > http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar.html > > Thanks, > Josh > > -- > Josh Holtzman > Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley > [email protected] > 510.529.9225 > >
