cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <Brian.Horb...@thomson.com>
Subject RE: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run?
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:35:16 GMT

Not dropping anything sounds good to me.

While I've used JAXB and JibX, my buddy over here is the one who looked
at Aegis a while back when we first checked out Xfire and he liked what
he saw. He is on vacation so I can't give you details on that one at
this time. Well, other than annotations, since you asked, which from now
on I will refer to as snails.

There are a some of us who are "not fond" of them. The "not fondness",
however, is "not occasional." There are a number of reasons for that,
including the depojoisation (I just made that up) of pojos. 

What if the objects are used in multiple contexts, like ours are? Do you
annotate it twice? Aegis, with its nice external mapping files works. We
have the same issues with snailing web service endpoints. Who says you
have only have one WS incarnation of a java service? 

I have other issues with snailing, too.

I'll make a note to get the details on Aegis from my buddy whan he is
back and get you some more details, if there are any.

Brian

-->-----Original Message-----
-->From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bim2007@basistech.com] 
-->Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:45 AM
-->To: cxf-user@incubator.apache.org
-->Subject: RE: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run?
-->
-->I'm unaware of any plan to drop anything. 
-->
-->Some parts of Aegis, however, get more attention than 
-->others. The parts of Aegis that seem pretty hard to 
-->distinguish from JAXB, in particular.
-->Could you comment on why you prefer Aegis to JAXB? Do you 
-->share my occasional dislike of snails in your code (@)?
-->
-->> -----Original Message-----
-->> From: Brian.Horblit@thomson.com [mailto:Brian.Horblit@thomson.com]
-->> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:01 PM
-->> To: cxf-user@incubator.apache.org
-->> Subject: RE: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run?
-->> 
-->> 
-->> Glen,
-->> 
-->> First, thanks for the response.
-->> 
-->> But next I can't quite resist pointing out that you didn't really
-->answer
-->> my question ;-)
-->> 
-->> Your points on security are well taken! Our little piece of the
-->business
-->> does not handle HIPAA data, at the moment. (I guess you 
-->noticed the 
-->> "Healthcare" part of my sig!) We deal with non-patient-specific 
-->> reference data, although one never knows what will come on 
-->down the 
-->> line.
-->> 
-->> We do have strict security requirements, however. I had 
-->typed up much
-->of
-->> a detailed response explaining our situation, but realized this is 
-->> likely not the right forum for that. Perhaps you can trust, for the
-->sake
-->> of argument, that I understand the security issues 
-->involved and that
-->we
-->> already have extensive security infrastructure that will 
-->be baked into 
-->> whatever toolkit we choose (or into which we'll bake a new 
-->toolkit), 
-->> along with adding support for all the new, fun 
-->WS-EtcEtcEtc stuff. The 
-->> same goes for lots of other things one needs for a real system:
-->logging,
-->> monitoring, management, updates, configuration, pizza 
-->delivery, etc.
-->> 
-->> There are some cases where, indeed, "shoving a bunch of 
-->unannotated 
-->> classes to CXF" will be the quickest way to get things done - given
-->that
-->> the simple model has the extension/integration points we 
-->need. Which
-->is
-->> something I still need to check out. But all that would be 
-->moot if the 
-->> simple model is not long for this world.
-->> 
-->> Does this help?
-->> 
-->> Thanks again!
-->> 
-->> Brian
-->> 
-->> P.S. Oh yeah, and there will definitively be situations where the
-->simple
-->> model is not adequate.
-->> 
-->> -->-----Original Message-----
-->> -->From: Glen Mazza [mailto:glen.mazza@verizon.net]
-->> -->Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:05 PM
-->> -->To: cxf-user@incubator.apache.org
-->> -->Subject: Re: Simple/Aegis model to be supported in the long run?
-->> -->
-->> -->Brian, are you handling HIPAA data?  Then I would 
-->forget about the 
-->> -->simple frontend.  It's not intended for that.
-->> -->
-->> -->For good, rigorous coding of Privacy Act/HIPAA data, 
-->you should be 
-->> -->starting with WSDL-first development.[1][2]  That will 
-->give you the 
-->> -->needed experience later when you need to implement 
-->security.  Don't 
-->> -->want to start with WSDL though?
-->> -->OK, then do JAX-WS Java-first with annotations.  It 
-->really isn't 
-->> -->that much harder than the simple frontend.
-->> -->
-->> -->Doing either of the above also helps portability--you 
-->can switch 
-->> -->much more quickly to Metro (or Axis2, to an extent) if 
-->you need to 
-->> -->for whatever reason.
-->> -->
-->> -->But just shoving a bunch of unannotated classes to CXF 
-->and hoping 
-->> -->it will choose the right methods to expose and the 
-->right ones not 
-->> -->to does not sound very secure.  I don't need to tell you that.
-->> -->
-->> -->Regards,
-->> -->Glen
-->> -->
-->> -->[1] http://www.jroller.com/gmazza/date/20071019
-->> -->[2] http://www.javapassion.com/handsonlabs/wswsdl/
-->> -->
-->> -->
-->> -->Am Montag, den 29.10.2007, 15:25 -0600 schrieb
-->> -->Brian.Horblit@thomson.com:
-->> -->> Hi,
-->> -->>
-->> -->> I'm taking a look at web service frameworks. I've played
-->> -->with Sun's
-->> -->> impl of JAX-WS. I've played with (and rejected) Axis2. I'm
-->> -->about to
-->> -->> play with CFX, I've browsed through the docs, but had a
-->> -->question that
-->> -->> I could not find explicitly discussed. Is the "simple"
-->> -->model here to stay?
-->> -->>
-->> -->> Perhaps my question is addressed somewhere and I've just
-->> -->blown past it.
-->> -->> Much of the documentation seems to center around the
-->> -->JAX-WS front end
-->> -->> and relatively little is written about the simple front
-->> -->end. Perhaps
-->> -->> because it is so... simple? ;-) One reason I am interested
-->> -->in CFX is
-->> -->> because of the simple model it supports. We do need 
-->to support 
-->> -->> standards, but in some cases we would like to turn existing 
-->> -->> non-trivial code into web services as easily as possible.
-->> -->Not having
-->> -->> to annotate would be a good thing for a couple of reasons.
-->> -->>
-->> -->> If we were interested in CFX in part because of the simple
-->> -->model, are
-->> -->> we "safe" going with CFX? In other words, are the simple
-->> -->model and the
-->> -->> Aegis data binding (which we liked when we looked into it)
-->> -->going to be
-->> -->> around for the long haul, or will CFX evolve into a (good)
-->> -->JAX-WS impl
-->> -->> while dropping support for simple/Aegis?
-->> -->>
-->> -->> Thanks for consideration of my "newbie" question!
-->> -->>
-->> -->> Brian
-->> -->>
-->> -->> Brian D. Horblit
-->> -->> Senior Principal Engineer
-->> -->> Thomson Healthcare
-->> -->>
-->> -->>
-->> -->
-->> -->
-->

Mime
View raw message