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 eric@tibco.com designates
 63.100.100.142 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4D9A3901.1010003@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:32:49 -0700
From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Question for CXF developers - level of support for W3C SOAP/JMS
 specification
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've a question for the CXF developers. To quickly introduce myself, I'm 
the chair of the W3C WG for SOAP/JMS [1].

We're at the point where we want to declare a "Proposed Recommendation" 
(PR) for what is currently our "working draft" [2]. For those 
unfamiliar, that's the step before declaring something an actual W3C 
official "Recommendation." [4]

To achieve this milestone, we simply need to have two implementations of 
the specification. More specifically, we need two implementations of 
each and every normative statement of the specification - even those 
normative statements that are optional.

 From work I've done looking at the source code and the samples, it 
appears that CXF falls into that category. Of particular concern, we're 
curious about the WSDL extension elements that we've defined, in part 
because some of the vendors we've talked to have indicated that they 
will not be supporting such extension elements.

In any case, I'm looking for some sort of public statement from the CXF 
developers about each the normative statements ("assertions") [3] from 
the spec, and whether each is covered by the CXF implementation. Since 
the specification has changed slightly since the last working draft - 
mostly to clarify the assertions, and fix some oversights - it would 
actually be useful to know about CXF with respect to our latest working 
copy, and its assertions [5], and that either or both will do.

Can anyone comment?

Thanks!

-Eric Johnson

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-soapjms-20101026/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-soapjms-20101026/#assertionsummary
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance
[5] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#assertionsummary