geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Sauthier <>
Subject Re: JSR 109 implementation for Apache (tool framework)
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:04:03 GMT
Srinath Perera wrote:
> Hi Guillaume;Richard;
> > > It seems to me ( I could be confused) that Axis already provides the
> > > > functionality described by your framework.  It can already take a WSDL
> > > > document and generate interfaces, bindings, and implementation classes.
> > >
> > > Axis support the case for the publishing the java class, but not a EJB.
> > > If you want to publish EJB and provide other service supported by the
> > > J2EE container the user has to write lot of manual code.
> >
> > A provider for EJB exists in Axis! So you can publish an EJB Session
> > easily. But they are some leaks :
> > EJB 2.1 API SessionContext define a getMessageContext method that Axis
> > should set before delegating the method call to the EJB
> > If you want some security, transactions, ... you have to write customs
> > handlers.
> yes Actually before the starting JSR109 impl I did go to axis mailing
> lists with the isuue's JSR109 vs EJB provider.
> If I am remember correct if you use ejb provider there is issue of
> genarating the WSDL as well.

WSDL Genration seems to work with Axis 1.1. Maybe there is still bugs
opens ... I will check this !

> In short to use EJBProvider (IMO)it ask for fluency in the WebSerivce's
> as well as J2EE. how the Context of WebService  map to Context of J2EE
> is lot of work all the time.

I don't understand this "lot of work all the time". Why ? ... Can you
better explain this please ?

> Plus if we use that we are bound by the JAX-RPC mapping file limitation
> of axis. Actually we can enhanced EJB provider but it will bind the
> JSR109 impl to the Axis (IMO) too tightly.

That's true. But if we use Axis as WebService Engine, it's mandatory to
use Provider for WS publication. So we should implement our own
EJBProvider or extends Axis one to take into account mappings. 

What is the other choice ?

> thanks for comments
> Thanks
> Srinath

View raw message