2009/7/27 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>: > > Krzysztof, > > On Fri July 24 2009 6:35:12 pm Krzysztof Wilkos wrote: >> We've got working client for SOAP over TCP protocol. It was tested >> with .Net service. It still needs some improvments and more >> documentation but my second task for GSoC is writting server side so I >> have to hurry up. >> I need a piece of advice about SOAP/TCP server side design. I'm >> thinking about using MINA together with CXF inside Spring. > > MINA is definitely the way to go. Good idea. > >> In >> architecture guide there's just few words about destinations. I know >> that I have to write DestinationFactory and Destination classes. > > You may NOT have to write the DestinationFactory thing. Since this is very > soap specific, it's proabably would be preferred to add this into the soap > binding like the soap/jms stuff. The soap binding already has a > DestinationFactory registered. The "createDestination" calls in there would > just need updating to detect when soap/tcp is needed (url scheme?) and create > yours. > >> Are >> there any other nessesary classes? How I have to register my >> DestinationFactory so that it would be avaiable from >> DestinationFactoryManager? > > Normally in spring via the META-INF/cxf/cxf-extension-XXXXXX.xml files. Take > a look at those. However, if put into soap binding, it's already done. > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org > http://www.dankulp.com/blog >
We didn't decided which MINA version we will use. 2.x branch has new features and performance improvements but still there are no stable realease. There are API differences between 1.x and 2.x branch so if we choose 1.x we will have more work in the future. I hope that they provide stable MINA 2.0.0 before we release CXF with SOAP/TCP so I started with 2.0.0-M6 but I can still switch to 1.x if you want. -- Krzysztof Wilkos
