geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Cabrera <...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject RE: WebServices & UI team
Date Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:25:00 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com] 
> 
> Alan Cabrera wrote:
> > You can use SOAP as an underlying protocol although 
> callbacks won't be 
> > as timely.
> 
> I think that putting SOAP under JMX is questionable, but I'm 
> curious to hear you elaborate if you care to do so.

I don't claim that this is ultimately the way to go, my statement is a
result of thread drift against your claims that it cannot be done.
Technically, it is possible and fits quite nicely in the JSR160 spec and the
results are not that bad, if one is comparing against a regular SOAP
interface w/ the exact same feature set.  Can we drop this?

> > > it seems reasonable to assume that system administrators may want 
> > > various means for administration, such as being able to write 
> > > perl/python scripts.
> 
> > Makes sense.  AAMOF, it makes so much sense that I'm wondering if a 
> > JSR doesn't already address it.
> 
> > > A WSDL definition has to start somewhere.  You think you can find 
> > > anyone with J2EE admin experience around here?
> 
> > I was thinking along the lines of a JSR.  I am lothe to begin a 
> > non-JSR effort for a standard SOAP admin interface.
> 
> I suspect that it would be useful to actually have something 
> if/when proposing a JSR.  Take JSR 166, for example.  Also, 
> you'll have far more (and varied) input here than on a typical JSR TF.

Ugh, there's enough traffic discussing how to implement exsiting specs.  You
want to start a discussion on this list about a new one?


Mime
View raw message