I would rather pay attention to being WS-I compliant rather than WSIT, although their goals may be the same - but WS-I is implementation neutral: http://www.oasis-ws-i.org/
As long as you design your contracts correctly they should be interopable. We have clients using a wide range of WS-stacks, windows, unix etc. 2012/7/6 johngalt <[email protected]>: > I was looking for a bit of information from experienced > users of different java web services frameworks. > Specifically: CXF, Metro, axis2 > > I have an new environment with many different web services: WSDL and REST, > Java and .NET WCF > So I've been trying to go through the specfics of each framework to > determine which is the best > for my environment. > > Here is what I've found, based on a few hours of googling. > > CXF - PROS - WSDL and REST (implements both JAX-WS and JAX-RS) > - CONS - Doesn't support WSIT for the WSDL side of things, for > WCF/Java > interoperability > > Axis2 - CONS - REST support for only GET and POST (seems to use wsdl behind > the scenes even for REST?) > > Metro - PROS - WSIT support on the wsdl side > - REST support if I include Jersey > > So it seems like CXF or Metro is a good choice, depending on how many wsdl > services I think > will be Java/WCF or WCF/Java. > > Any input, opinions, past experiences, corrections, etc, appreciated: > > Cheers > > -- > View this message in context: > http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/CXF-Metro-Axis2-tp5710691.html > Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- -- David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen
