Hi, WS-RM is definitely used in production in several systems and will be more widely used in near future within the government industry in the Netherlands. Set aside the technical implications that Dennis points out, data integration and message exchange security/reliability is often a matter where the responsibility lies. To standardise this, is a topic in many industries since you don't want every unit using a different application solution to solve the same problem. To have a mature and standard protocol in place which can be used in industry wide standards is in my opinion the main reason why we have standards at all. Of course a standard is of no use if the implementations are no good and not interoperable so I think it is very important that CXF 3.0 has finalised the WS-RM implementation. We will be gladly using and promoting this new update of CXF in the Dutch government as soon as the official release is out.
Regards, John On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Dennis Sosnoski <[email protected]> wrote: > I suppose a lot comes down to the type of application. I've seen WS-RM > used mostly with government or industry groups, where there's going to be a > variety of different client and service implementations and they want to > assure reliability across the whole range. > > If you're just building a service for internal use by your organization > WS-RM may be overkill, especially if a simple ARQ-style approach (send and > wait, retry if acknowledgement not received before timeout) will work for > your application. And certainly you can make this type of approach work - > just use unique application-level identifiers for your messages, > acknowledge each one, and hold on to each message (probably in persistent > storage) until acknowledged. Then implement a processing queue on the > receive side, assuming you also want in-order processing. And write this > code once for each different type of client or service. > > Just out of curiosity, do you also swear off TCP and use UDP for all your > internet stuff? :-) > > - Dennis > > > On 04/01/2014 01:28 AM, Frizz wrote: > >> Thanks for your reply Dennis. >> >> The more I tinker with WS-RM the more I come to the conclusion that this >> reliable messaging should NOT be handled on the transport level - but on >> the business level. >> >> I don't want to start a religious war here ... and it's more of a gut >> feeling anyway - but: do you guys really use WS-RM? In production >> environments? >> >> >
