On 6/22/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan,
ok. let's stick to the technical side for a minute and let me layout a logic.
- Tuscany started with an Axis1 binding and then they added Axis2.
When Celtix guys wanted to do the same, We welcomed Dan and got him
cranking.
- So Tuscany is better off now as a container that supports multiple
soap engines.
Are u with me so far?
- CeltixFire's vision is to be a SOA Infrastructure project with all
things pluggable.
Essentially aiming to be a JAX-WS/JAX-WSA/JSR181 provider (SOA's a big
space with lots of technologies so I like to be specific when talking
about it)
- CeltixFire aims to include both ServiceMix and Tuscany
Integrate with rather than include; I doubt CeltixFire will have
ServiceMix and Tuscany inside it by default ;). Though I'd image both
ServiceMix & Tuscany might use CeltixFire inside them as a pluggable
option (ditto with Axis1/2)
- ServiceMix and Tuscany both support multiple soap engines AFAIK.
Yes - the whole point of JBI is to support pluggable binding
components so yes ServiceMix should support every possible SOAP stack
(Axis*, CeltixFire and Sun's JAX-WS RI).
Again, Are u with me so far?
Yes
So, why is it a crime to ask if Axis2 can be one-of-many pluggable
soap engine in a "SOA Infrastructure" project?
I wasn't aware of anyone saying that? AFAIK all projects are happy to
plug in different providers of things. SOA is all about integrating
different things together afterall ;).
I'm looking forward to seeing more cross-project collaboration during
the incubation.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
