Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: JSR 109 implementation for Apache
From: Srinath Perera <hemapani@vijayaba.cse.mrt.ac.lk>
Reply-To: hemapani@vijayaba.cse.mrt.ac.lk
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: knight@adsl.tie.cl
In-Reply-To: <3F42DCE6000305AD@mta01.tie.cl>
References: <3F42DCE6000305AD@mta01.tie.cl>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Lanka Software Foundation
Message-Id: <1067308031.1791.35.camel@rook>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 28 Oct 2003 08:27:12 +0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Luis

On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 00:15, knight@adsl.tie.cl wrote:
>We need the same kind of hook in JSR-109 impl that exist in Axis for the
> deployment.  
please let us know what is the best  place to find the DD
architecture info. and from following what does Geronimo support right now.
1)WSDL (??)
2)jaxrpcmapping(no?)
3)ejb xml file (yes?)
4)web service.xml (no?)

We will write code to support what Geronimo not support now. Are we add
that code to Geronimo DD parsing module

> Our proposal consist , basically, in make a JMX layer that allow any JSR-109
> compliant ws-engine to be integrated with geronimo.

and to commnet about this I think it is better to take axis-dev in I cc
to axis dev.

Srinath

> 
> We think that we'll soon be able to do an arquitectural proposal. 
> 
> We agree with you, and it has alway been our idea since the begining: we
> need a clear interface, this manner, Axis must be considered as a service
> like the others.
> 
> Our job proposal consist in two steps:
> 
> As a first step, we are going to integrate Axis as it is. Then
> we'll work closely with the team in charge of the JSR-109 implementation
> to globally integrate JSR-109 to geronimo.
> 
> Jeremy Lemaire sent a prior message with the same concepts, but i prefered
> to explain they again.
> 
> Luis Avila
> 
> >-- Original Message --
> >Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jeremy@coredevelopers.net>
> >To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >Cc: <hemapani@vijayaba.cse.mrt.ac.lk>
> >Subject: RE: JSR 109 implementation for Apache
> >Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 06:33:07 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Srinath Perera [mailto:hemapani@vijayaba.cse.mrt.ac.lk] 
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:01 AM
> >> 
> >> >  After dev, this
> >> > tool should be integrated/used into JOnAS as well as Geronimo...
> >> > 
> >> > What do you think ?
> >> 
> >
> >Definitely a good goal.
> >
> >> sure :) we are more than happy to have your help ..
> >> I remember you mention there are some part of code you have which 
> >> might be reused in a JSR109 impl as well. 
> >> 
> >> here is architecture propsal (you might have seen)
> >>  
> >> http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/~hemapani/JSR109/architecture.html
> >> 
> >> yap and if my understanding is correct this can be used in 
> >> the JOnAs as well 
> >> as geranimo. (actually in that way it depends on the J2EE 
> >> spec not the container. My only concern is will it be a big 
> >> performence penalty as we do first an 
> >> HTTP/SOAP access(web service layer) then RMI accsess.(axis to 
> >> container)  
> >> / if this is  a problem we can use Local inteface instead of Remote 
> >> interface(just a idea))
> >> 
> >
> >I can't think of any reason why that should not be possible. You
> >probably want to support both though to allow for configurations where
> >the web-services gateway is running on a dedicated machine.
> >
> >A couple of comments on the architecture page:
> >
> >I don't see any mention of client side support (e.g. using a web service
> >from an EJB) - is this something you are planning to address?
> >
> >You should hook the XML parsing stuff into Geronimo's deployment
> >mechanism - I believe Aaron Mulder was already asking what, if any,
> >additional elements were needed in the vendor DDs. We want to avoid the
> >case where the same XML gets parsed many times by many services. This
> >should also be integrated with Geronimo's MBean model so that the web
> >services specific components are manageable.
> >
> >Can you define the hooks into the security services e.g. how you would
> >support future message level authentication (I would like to know we had
> >at least considered some of the security issues).
> >
> >--
> >Jeremy
> >
>