Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 91885 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2010 23:49:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 8 Dec 2010 23:49:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 78344 invoked by uid 500); 8 Dec 2010 23:49:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 78150 invoked by uid 500); 8 Dec 2010 23:49:32 -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 78142 invoked by uid 99); 8 Dec 2010 23:49:32 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:49:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jgenender@savoirtech.com designates 209.85.213.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.41] (HELO mail-yw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.213.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:49:25 +0000 Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3so1222912ywj.0 for ; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:49:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.91.186.3 with SMTP id n3mr12428154agp.43.1291852145055; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:49:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from macpro.savoirtech.com (router.savoirtech.com [173.164.32.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d15sm1190263ana.35.2010.12.08.15.49.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:49:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: Jeff Genender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: Latest IBM DeveloperWorks article From: Jeff Genender In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:49:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201012080755.53801.dkulp@apache.org> <4CFFE76B.3090200@sosnoski.com> <629CD4E6-7281-47C5-82A3-53757B5F11CD@tataryn.net> <5BAD8291-87A5-48AC-BEFE-6C78A1079EFB@tataryn.net> <4D001641.9020107@gmail.com> To: dev@cxf.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Andreas, Honestly... its not misleading... this discussion really should be taken = offline and go direct. There are people who like WAS and people who = absolutely hate it. It can be argued all day about the merits of WAS = and how great or sucky it is.... but probably not here. Just my .02. I = would encourage you guys to have an email chat privately to work this = out as this is really becoming a religious discussion more than the = merits of the article. Jeff On Dec 8, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote: > The discussion has actually nothing to do with either CXF or Axis2 > (nor with Dennis' article). I just hate it when people make misleading > statements. >=20 > Andreas >=20 > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 00:35, Glen Mazza wrote: >> AS WAS 6.1 is built on Axis2, perhaps this thread would be better = moved to >> the Axis2 Dev list. >>=20 >> Glen >>=20 >> On 12/08/2010 06:29 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote: >>>=20 >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 22:58, Craig Tataryn = wrote: >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 2010-12-08, at 3:33 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Looks like you made the same mistake that I've seen elsewhere: = instead >>>>> of just installing the Web services feature pack on WAS 6.1 (to = get >>>>> JAX-WS support) and let the IBM support take care of the issues = (after >>>>> all that is what they are payed for), you spent your time trying = to >>>>> integrate another SOAP stack and solve the issues yourself. That = being >>>>> said, I don't know if the feature pack already existed when you = did >>>>> your project, and of course for a contractor that is the more >>>>> interesting option (I would do the same in that position ;-). But = OK, >>>>> let's not transform this thread into a discussion about how to = deploy >>>>> Web services on WAS... >>>>>=20 >>>>> Andreas >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I might have confused the article with another? I still stand by my >>>> statements. I don't want to use "Webservices Pack for WAS". I = want to use >>>> "works regardless of servlet container and support contract". So = it was not >>>> a "mistake", I fully intended to avoid the Webservices Pack. >>>>=20 >>>> Craig. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> This is again a misleading statement. WAS 6.1 is a J2EE 1.4 = compliant >>> application server and the feature pack adds support for some parts = of >>> JEE5 (in the same way as they have a feature pack to upgrade from = EJB >>> 2.1 to 3.0). It doesn't tie you to a particular vendor (in contrast = to >>> what they had in WebSphere 5). So, "works regardless of servlet >>> container" would really mean "doesn't use JEE5". There are indeed = some >>> arguments in favor of not using JEE5, including the quality of the >>> implementation in a particular application server or the fact that = for >>> some projects, it doesn't provide enough flexibility. >>>=20 >>> Andreas >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 21:26, Craig Tataryn = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> We were using WAS 6.1 and we needed to support HL7 payloads. = Axis >>>>>> wasn't up to snuff. Then trying to get modern versions of JAXB = and XML APIs >>>>>> to work with WAS wasted soooooo much time and money. It was also = a main >>>>>> contributor to my hair greying at the tender age of 34. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Craig. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 2010-12-08, at 2:15 PM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On 12/09/2010 08:53 AM, Andreas Veithen wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 14:40, Craig = Tataryn >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> That's great, his last article was very helpful at my last = contract >>>>>>>>> in saving me from implementing using "Web Services Pack for = WAS" (aka Axis) >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Interesting statement. Dennis' last articles were all about >>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>> between CXF, Rampart and Metro. However, although IBM uses = Axis2 as >>>>>>>> the basis for their JAX-WS support in WAS 7.0 and in the Web = services >>>>>>>> feature pack for WAS 6.1, they're not using Rampart at all, but = have >>>>>>>> their own WS-Security implementation... >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I haven't worked with WAS myself, but thought that might be the = case. >>>>>>> That's why I qualify my own rankings of the stacks in the latest >>>>>>> article >>>>>>> with " Also, the rankings apply only to the base open source = projects; >>>>>>> commercial stacks based on the open source versions may use = their own >>>>>>> security code and other extensions. You'll need to look at the >>>>>>> differences between the commercial code and the open source base = to >>>>>>> see >>>>>>> which parts of the rankings may apply." >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Andreas, why don't you add a comment to the article pointing out = that >>>>>>> the rankings don't apply to WAS for this reason? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> - Dennis >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20