Hi Glen,
thanks for the link to the spec. That´s astonishing they use quite the
same URL format (IRI) I imagined. I had not read the spec before.
Perhaps they were inspired by camel too ;-) But they strictly map the
IRI to message headers and properties. So we probably should set our own
parameters separately from the URL.
The spec mostly talks about the configuration by WSDL. I think we should
separate WSDL config from Spring config. The WSDL config typically is
defined by standards authorities so I think
we would give away flexibility if we take this format also for our own
internal config. Instead I would map the WSDL config to our internal config.
On the other hand we should make sure to implement all options that the
Soap Jms spec defines. So implementing the spec will be quite easy.
Best regards
Christian
Glen Mazza schrieb:
Christian, I would take a look at the IBM document attached here:
http://www.nabble.com/SOAP-JMS-binding-tool-changes-td19073747.html
and the specification it links to:
http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/
I'm unsure of the relation to these documents to what you're proposing, nor
am I necessarily recommending we do what they do, but I'm mentioning this in
case there is something important in these documents that you might have
overlooked in your suggestions.
Glen
Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi,
after Glen´s Mail about my tutorial for setting up JMS for CXF with
Apache Camel on the dev list there was a discussion about improvements
for the JMS config for CXF.
I have written a proposal how I think this could be done. My focus is
only on the configuration syntax not the implementation but I think it
can be done.
Here is the link to the proposal. I would be very interested in your
opinions about this style of configuration:
http://www.liquid-reality.de/display/liquid/2008/08/30/Proposal+for+a+new+JMS+Transport+configuration+for+CXF
Best regards
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
