Daniel Kulp wrote: > > WS-* stuff is always "on the roadmap", but whether they get implemented or > not > really depend on if someone steps up to do it (or if one of the companies > that > supports CXF has a paying customer that requires it). >
Just curious, why no paying customers are not demanding it? Is it that there are other ways to implement transactions other than WS-* specs? Or is it not a practical solution for transaction management? Anto -- View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/WS-specification-for-transaction-tp1618539p1698737.html Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
