Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to Sergey. So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
Cheers, Eoghan 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <[email protected]>: > Hi Eoghan, > Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the service > interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break the OSGI > service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case. > > We are building an open source system that must be able to operate in both a > co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located flavor, > we don't want to incur the overhead of web service serialization... we want > direct access to the java services as they were published to the OSGI > service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow adopting > institutions to swap out individual services for their own implementations > in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to be ignorant > of the current topology. Service developers should enable their services to > be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property and using > JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the services to be > remote. > > Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks wanting to > stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all of the > benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable outside of the > CXF world. > > Thanks, > Josh > > > Eoghan Glynn wrote: >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Josh Holtzman > Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley > [email protected] > 510.529.9225 > >
