As a casual snooper of this mailing list, I feel compelled to echo Glen's
sentiments.
We do this all the time, successfully, on the ground and in the trenches,
getting bloody,
sometimes winning, sometimes getting scarred, and it really depends on the
complexity of the frameworks
and how easy/hard it is to do the simple/complex things correctly.
Minimum effort and complexity, at least from where I sit, is a much more
compelling reason to go with an os stack.
When the complexity rises, we have to determine costs in time and
development weighed against the benefits
of using something like axis2. Once the tipping point goes over, it becomes
more difficult for people such as myself
to argue the case and not go for vendor stacks that cost more (as ironic as
that may seem ;-).
Please do not take offense at this, and I apologize for eavesdropping, but
I feel that its important for you guys to
hear this perspective from someone responsible for building out trading
infrastructures that ride billions $USD per day.
Jin
Jin Chun
Vice President: Chief Applications Architect
State Street – Global Link | www.statestreet.com | www.globallink.com
617.664.1695 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SCJA SCJP OCP-DBA
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in the email is intended
for the confidential use of the above-named recipient(s). If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient or person responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this communication in error, and that any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender
immediately and destroy this message.
Glen Daniels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t.com> To
axis-dev@ws.apache.org
05/09/2006 11:38 cc
AM
Subject
Re: [axis2] Spring Support
Please respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e.org
Just a couple of comments...
Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> Thats true, we cannot and should not try to satisfy everybody.
> Most people are looking for a magic wand that will create there code with
> minimum effort as possible.
Hm... so what's wrong with that? If there are packages out on the
market which make this stuff really easy and interoperate well with
others, it is my belief they are going to win out over more
complex/difficult solutions.
> Reading the thread on TSS I was sad to see that most people have missed
the
> boat about Web Services.
>
> These people expect nothing but to expose their **objects** as Web
Services
> using some framework with minimum effort as possible.
> Thats as far as they are willing to go with Web Services.
Although an awful lot of people preach doom-and-gloom about how horrible
it is to map XML to/from objects, the fact is that a lot of people do
it, and a lot of people do it successfully, and it's NOT always a bad
idea. Yes, XML has a lot more expressive power than 3/4GLs, and that
means that not all XML will cleanly map to objects. However, many
objects of "value type" classes (such as you want to pass around in a
SOA-style application) *are* going to map pretty cleanly to XML, and
this is a very nice feature. We shouldn't dismiss it.
--Glen
