Yes, of course. Certainly, apologies to Bill for any (highly) false
pretense I may have given that I'm a better developer than he.
Glen
On 2/25/2011 3:28 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Glen,
Please lighten up. I really don't think these types of attacks are
appropriate here. Thise seems more like the Axis list response than a CXF
list response, and that's not a good thing IMO.
In general, if a user on a CXF list has a problem that is better met with a
competing product, I'm a firm believer that:
1) We SHOULD let the user know about that. At the end of the day, the user has
a problem that they need a solution for. If that means using something else,
I'm OK with that.
BUT:
2) We should figure out WHY the other solution is better and determine if it's
something we can address in CXF. Possibly log some JIRA's or something.
Anyway, please try to keep things more cordial and pleasant.
Thanks!
Dan
On Friday 25 February 2011 10:01:52 AM Glen Mazza wrote:
Bill, I'm all for plugging but if you could spend some time on fixing
the five (rather simple) RESTEasy bugs I reported (RESTEAST-494, 495,
496, 497, and 502) over a month ago, among the 109 you presently have
open and unresolved, that would also be good. As the Russian Czar
learned during WWI, it's not good to go too much on the offensive when
things are rotting out at home.
Glen
On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
That's great but what if your client isn't Java? Download a SOAP stack
and pray its compatible with CXF?
Simple HTTP calls are far superior, more lightweight, and easier to
code. Seriously, check out what we've done with the HornetQ REST
interface. Specifically the Javascript and Python examples. You'll see
that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to
interface with a fully featured messaging API.
I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word
whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging.
http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest
On 2/24/11 8:23 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
CXF JMS transport supports JMS URI which is part of JMS over SOAP spec
out of box. I think you can use it with JAXRS frontend without any
trouble.
2011/2/24, robert<rob...@gliesian.com>:
CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
better suited in a supported WSDL or WADL?
I assume WADL as supported by CXF?
Thanks!
--
Glen Mazza
Software Engineer, Talend (http://www.talend.com)
blog: http://www.jroller.com/gmazza
