cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Connelly <daniel.s.conne...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Endpoints: JAX-WS vs. WCF
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:24:36 GMT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1250"
 http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Is there a Contract on Semantics, on Cost, on Quality?   <br>
<br>
In a world of mashups and MOSS, I think it is likely that decisions
such as "make vs. buy" and "local vs. remote" will be inserted between
the Endpoint and the competing Services.<br>
<br>
It was unfair of me to compare JAX-WS with WCF.    JAX-WS has no
pretension of being a component architecture. <br>
<br>
       -- Dan Connelly<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ted Neward wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:0d2301c7c360$b1f2bae0$802ca8c0@XPWork" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">That's not *exactly* correct, Dan; a WCF endpoint is created with a
Contract, which can be specified using a variety of things, including a C#
(or VB or C++/CLI or ...) interface with the appropriate custom attributes
describing the contract, or it can also be done directly on a class using
same said attributes. Most of the time when we demo WCF ("we" being "myself
and the folks I teach with at Pluralsight"), we show the attributes on
interfaces because that is the model that was most widely discussed and
promoted for .NET Remoting and ASMX, not because it's the model that makes
the most sense.

I'm not suggesting that Microsoft *didn’t* get it right here... I'm just
wondering if it's really all that important to be able to slide a different
implementation behind an interface, when the actual point of coupling is not
the language interface, but the XML messages being sent back and forth.

Anyway, just my $.02 worth. I, for one, am not all that upset at the idea of
a single concrete class being tied to an endpoint, because I'm not convinced
that the value of the interface-implementation idiom is that critical in a
distributed system where the contract isn't given by the interface itself.

Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tedneward.com">http://www.tedneward.com</a>
 

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connelly [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:daniel.s.connelly@comcast.net">mailto:daniel.s.connelly@comcast.net</a>]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:40 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cxf-user@incubator.apache.org">cxf-user@incubator.apache.org</a>
Subject: Endpoints: JAX-WS vs. WCF

A JAX-WS Endpoint must be created using a service implementation.

A (Microsoft) WCF Endpoint, on the other hand, is created with an SEI
(C# interface), not an implementation.    This allows multiple impls of
the same service interface to be reached through the WCF Endpoint.   The
Dispatcher, which is configured separately, has rules for invoking the
desired implementation.

It seems to me that Microsoft got it right.    Does anyone want to
comment on that?

Why is there no DispatchingInvoker class in CXF as a convenience when
the user needs a Dispatcher?    Is there a sample showing the coding for
a dispatching Invoker?

       -- Dan Connelly

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 7/8/2007
6:32 PM

    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: 7/9/2007
5:22 PM
 


  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

Mime
View raw message