Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bburke@redhat.com designates
 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4D6BD7F4.8030609@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:14:28 -0500
From: Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to consume JMS services
References: <AANLkTimzue5DtHdyd4PrgzD+WJ4nyODRkK=xuWetTdpU@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D6BB758.70306@redhat.com>
 <AANLkTimqLhN5ircJWP=dvxruZWM7oxSE=JZJMKOhS2Qo@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimqLhN5ircJWP=dvxruZWM7oxSE=JZJMKOhS2Qo@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

you mean using AMQP as a marshalling format?

On 2/28/11 10:29 AM, James Carr wrote:
> Even more important... REST over AMQP will be the superior choice in
> the future imho. Small messages shared between java and non java
> consumers. FTW! :)
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Bill Burke<bburke@redhat.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/11 6:10 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> I'm starting a new thread...
>>>
>>> Comments inline.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think its fair to suggest to somebody asking about JMS integration
>>>> solutions other than CXF.  We encourage such posts on resteasy mail list.
>>>
>>
>> Especially since hornetq rest can be consumed by CXF.
>>
>>> Sure - unless we reckon we can provide something meaningful at the CXF
>>> level ?
>>>
>>
>> FYI, I've tried very very hard to minimalize, lessen, remove the requirement
>> or need for a specific client framework or stack other than HTTP to consume
>> hornetq's REST interface.  IMO, anybody writing a REST interface should make
>> similar efforts.  Because, otherwise, what's the point?
>>
>> I also think we have to be very very careful from a REST framework
>> perspective to avoid marrying/coupling our frameworks to a developer's
>> application.  Once you've created the requirement for a framework to be
>> installed both on the client and server, you've done something wrong.
>>
>> All this is why I piped in when somebody asked about JMS integration.
>> Because I believe really strongly about the above.  SOAP+JMS is really a
>> consideration only for cross-language/platform interoperability.  REST, IMO,
>> is a superior approach because of the reasons listed above.  Since CXF is
>> now embracing REST through its JAX-RS implementation, alternatives to
>> SOAP-based approaches should be suggested and encouraged, at least by the
>> REST guys at CXF ;)
>>
>>>
>>> P.S. Bill - you are welcome to contribute and challenge us on the dev
>>> list. Sorry if the previous thread caused you some grief :-). I
>>> believe no-one meant anything more than just a protective remark. It
>>> is obvious now it turned out to be a highly controversial one but hope
>>> such a seasoned professional as you are can accept the attempted
>>> clarifications and apologies which followed :-)
>>>
>>
>> My "grief" usually doesn't last more than 2 seconds and I've received much
>> much worse grief before.  If I was more professional, and I'm not, I would
>> have just ignored Glen's comments.  Instead, I just couldn't resist the urge
>> to tweak him, for that I apologize.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>

-- 
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com