On Sunday 17 October 2010 6:20:57 pm Robert Liguori wrote: > I have a few questions about the Projects Page ( > http://cxf.apache.org/project-status.html) relative to the modules in the > distribution... > > -- I only see a security related file named cxf-rt-ws-security-2.3.0.jar. > Are the WS-SecurityPolicy, WS-SecurityConversation and WS-Trust support > functionality handled in this module? If not, in what module(s) can I find > this support?
Yes. It processes those specs and such, but then delegates the actual low level security calls down to WSS4J. > -- All of these bindings have there own modules... coloc, corba, http, > object, soap, xml. What are the coloc and object modules (relative to the > file names)? The coloc module is a CXF "Feature" (http://cxf.apache.org/docs/featureslist.html) that allows automatic detection of when a Client and a Service are stuck on the same bus and then bypasses much of the interceptor chains during processing. No marshalling occurs, no XML, etc... The object module, when combined with the local transport, can also accomplish something similar in that it allows directly passing objects from Client/Server in the same Bus without marshalling. It's a bit lower level than the coloc stuff though. > -- JAX-WS and JAX-RS are statused as done and TCK compliant. What does TCK > compliant mean? Is that relative to the Geronimo supplied JARS (JSR > implementations), relative to the CXF support files, or both? Are there > any TCK test artifacts that can be shared? The TCK (Testing and Compatibility Kit) is what CXF uses to certify its implementations. Geronimo has the full J2EE TCK, but most of the technologies in J2EE also have a standlone version for outside a J2EE server, which is what we use. The TCK's in our case require non-disclosure. Any CXF committer can sign an NDA with Apache and get access to the TCK's and our setup scripts and stuff that we use to run them. > -- Should the HTTP-Jetty and HTTP-OSGI modules be mentioned under the > Transport sections? Probably. > -- How about simple and Javascript frontends, should they be mentioned on > the project status page? Probably. > -- "Tooling" covers a lot... should the tables have a brief description for > each module(s)? Sure. Go for it. :-) > -- JBI, JCA, JMX; Are there separate modules for these, or are they > integrated amongst different files? The base JMX code is in cxf-rt-management. For JBI and JCA, there is stuff in the top level integration directory of the build, but I really don't know how complete they are and such or how they are used. For JBI, people generally just use the cxf-bc/se stuff in SMX, so I'm not sure how useful the JBI stuff we have is. > -- What are the plans for WSDL 2.0 support? Is there a roadmap for it, or > is it simply listed in hope that someone will chip in? In hopes that someone will chip in. It really hasn't been a priority as WSDL 2.0 really hasn't caught on. > -- What are the plans for Castor support? Is there a roadmap for it, or is > it simply listed in hope that someone will chip in? In hopes that someone will chip in. JiBX was that way until this summer when we got a GSoC student to work on it. SDO WAS that way until last summer when a GSoC student started it. Thus, it's more of "ideas" that people could pursue if they want to start contributing. -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog
