I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you replacing both?
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira and a > patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252 > > Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch. Since the > current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this patch > can be merged without causing any problems. > > Thanks, > Josh > > Josh Holtzman wrote: >> >> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the Java >> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no problem >> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they describe how to >> translate between Java and WSDL. >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> >> Eoghan Glynn wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > -- > Josh Holtzman > Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley > [email protected] > 510.529.9225 > >
