Hi All
I honestly don't understand why this thread hasn't died out yet.
IMHO (after rereading for the 3 time) what was meant to be a subtle
though a bit too over-elaborate remark involving the reference to the
Russian Tsar and the not so healthy core and which I read as an
attempt to protect the r
Hi Glen,
I can understand that Jeff first sent you a private mail to tell you he
disaproved the tone of your mail.
I use the same practice at work. If I don´t like someones actions and it
is a rather personal thing for me then I will not do
it in front of the team. Instead I meet with him in pr
then maybe you are going overboard. That's it! There's no reason
to go off list.
I just don't want to receive off-the-list emails from you. Period.
Glen
Original Message
Subject: [offlist again and no, onlist is not fine!] Re: [onlist is
fine!] Re: [offlis
You don't have to go off-list for this, Jeff. Besides my emails[1]
aren't that bad, hardly trolling. There was no malice in what I had
written (for I have a significant amount of respect for Bill), it was
just meant as a playful kick back at Bill at 8:01am this morning at what
I misperceived
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 li
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,
Well, I was hoping the glowing review I gave your book
(http://www.jroller.com/gmazza/entry/book_review_restful_java_with)
would result in additional sales and hence additional assistants for you
to close the bugs I reported (if not early retirement for yourself :);
if not, well, I appreciate you l
On 2/25/11 10:51 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
In your opinion, why would such (Java) users prefer an HTTP centric
interface for consuming messages backed up by JMS stores, when they
just can do plain Java JMS ?
What do you think ?
(Remember you asked what I think so)
I don't think people
Actually, Glen, looks like I've misread your comments as I always do,
sorry :-). But of course I'd still encourage us all to discuss
RestEasy issues on the RestEasy list where I'm a subscriber too :-)
Cheers, Sergey
2011/2/25 Bill Burke :
> Wow, you're funny. CXF has 255 unresolved bugs, does th
Wow, you're funny. CXF has 255 unresolved bugs, does this mean they are
rotting at the core as well?
FYI, half your bugs weren't even bugs. The others were minor example
errors. I apologize your bug reports weren't given my immediate full
attention, no matter how minor (or nonexistent) they wer
Nearly lost the message from Willem...
>>>
>>> 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
Yes indeed. On the server side it's easy. We can
Hi Guys
Come on, this is not a RESTEasy or HornetQ mailing list.
More comments inline
2011/2/25 Glen Mazza :
> 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
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'
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 example
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 :
> CXF supports SOAP over JMS; http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/.
>
> Should the bindings and service extensions defined by this spec be
Hi
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:48 PM, robert wrote:
> 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?
Yes but only JAX-RS endpoints
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!
17 matches
Mail list logo
