Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 85244 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2010 17:16:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2010 17:16:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 70379 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2010 17:16:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 70325 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2010 17:16:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 70317 invoked by uid 99); 29 Nov 2010 17:16:30 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:16:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.85.173.253] (HELO server.dankulp.com) (64.85.173.253) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:16:24 +0000 Received: by server.dankulp.com (Postfix, from userid 5000) id 158981871B4; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:16:04 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on server.dankulp.com X-Spam-Level: X-Msg-File: /tmp/mailfilter-dev@cxf.apache.org.Dip36ttbqj Received: from dilbert.dankulp.com (c-24-91-72-253.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.91.72.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.dankulp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 218281871AF; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:16:03 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kulp To: dev@cxf.apache.org Subject: Re: Status of WS-RM Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:16:07 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36; KDE/4.5.3; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Dennis Sosnoski References: <4CEF925B.3080601@sosnoski.com> In-Reply-To: <4CEF925B.3080601@sosnoski.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201011291216.07553.dkulp@apache.org> X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.9 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, SHORTCIRCUIT shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 On Friday 26 November 2010 5:56:27 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > Relating to this same issue of the WS-RM status, does the current code > handle interactions with WS-Security? In particular, I'm wondering what > happens if you're using timestamps with signing - does the WS-RM code > generate a new timestamp (and signature) when it resends the message, or > just resend the entire original message with the original timestamp? I believe it will just resend the original message. The WS-RM stuff I think just stores the message as a byte[] and resends it "as is". Not 100% sure though. Dan > Thanks, > > - Dennis > > Dennis M. Sosnoski > Java SOA and Web Services Consulting > Axis2/CXF/Metro SOA and Web Services Training > > Web Services Jump-Start > > On 11/17/2010 02:58 AM, Aki Yoshida wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Monday 15 November 2010 12:05:56 pm Scott Came wrote: > >>> Thanks, Daniel. > >>> What about the potential to leverage Sandesha or the implementation in > >>> Metro? My research has indicated that some time ago there was > >>> discussion about trying to create a reusable RM library that could do > >>> the job (with adaptation) across the various open source > >>> implementations of WS-*. While it seems that never went anywhere > >>> (probably with good reason) should I have any hope of reusing > >>> significant chunks of code from either of those efforts? > >> > >> Well, for Sandesha, I haven't looked at the code there at all so I don't > >> know how reasonable it is to reuse chunks of it. For WS-SecPol, I did > >> use the Rampart code as a base, but it pretty much ended up as a > >> complete re-write by the time I was done with it. Sandesha might be > >> in the same ball park. > > > > It would be nice to share some part of the implementation to save the > > development and maintenance cost. > > But I also have a feeling that using Sandesha won't be a shorter path > > to support WS-RM 1.1 in CXF. > > > > I am looking into some other issues of the current 1.0 implementation > > but I am also interested in this question of going for 1.1. > > > > Regards, Aki -- Daniel Kulp dkulp@apache.org http://dankulp.com/blog