cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <>
Subject Re: SOAP over JMS and CXF.
Date Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:13:20 GMT
Yes, of course.  Certainly, apologies to Bill for any (highly) false 
pretense I may have given that I'm a better developer than he.


On 2/25/2011 3:28 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Glen,
> Please lighten up.   I really don't think these types of attacks are
> appropriate here.   Thise seems more like the Axis list response than a CXF
> list response, and that's not a good thing IMO.
> In general, if a user on a CXF list has a problem that is better met with a
> competing product, I'm a firm believer that:
> 1) We SHOULD let the user know about that. At the end of the day, the user has
> a problem that they need a solution for.   If that means using something else,
> I'm OK with that.
> BUT:
> 2) We should figure out WHY the other solution is better and determine if it's
> something we can address in CXF.    Possibly log some JIRA's or something.
> Anyway, please try to keep things more cordial and pleasant.
> Thanks!
> Dan
> On Friday 25 February 2011 10:01:52 AM Glen Mazza wrote:
>> Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
>> the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
>> 496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
>> open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
>> learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
>> things are rotting out at home.
>> Glen
>> On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> That's great but what if your client isn't Java?  Download a SOAP stack
>>> and pray its compatible with CXF?
>>> Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
>>> code.  Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
>>> interface.  Specifically the Javascript and Python examples.  You'll see
>>> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
>>> interface with a fully featured messaging API.
>>> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
>>> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
>>> On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>> CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
>>>> out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
>>>> trouble.
>>>> 2011/2/24, robert<>:
>>>>> CXF supports SOAP over JMS;
>>>>> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
>>>>> better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
>>>>> I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
>>>>> Thanks!

Glen Mazza
Software Engineer, Talend (

View raw message