On Friday 26 November 2010 5:56:27 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > Relating to this same issue of the WS-RM status, does the current code > handle interactions with WS-Security? In particular, I'm wondering what > happens if you're using timestamps with signing - does the WS-RM code > generate a new timestamp (and signature) when it resends the message, or > just resend the entire original message with the original timestamp?
I believe it will just resend the original message. The WS-RM stuff I think just stores the message as a byte[] and resends it "as is". Not 100% sure though. Dan > Thanks, > > - Dennis > > Dennis M. Sosnoski > Java SOA and Web Services Consulting <http://www.sosnoski.com/consult.html> > Axis2/CXF/Metro SOA and Web Services Training > <http://www.sosnoski.com/training.html> > Web Services Jump-Start <http://www.sosnoski.com/jumpstart.html> > > On 11/17/2010 02:58 AM, Aki Yoshida wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Monday 15 November 2010 12:05:56 pm Scott Came wrote: > >>> Thanks, Daniel. > >>> What about the potential to leverage Sandesha or the implementation in > >>> Metro? My research has indicated that some time ago there was > >>> discussion about trying to create a reusable RM library that could do > >>> the job (with adaptation) across the various open source > >>> implementations of WS-*. While it seems that never went anywhere > >>> (probably with good reason) should I have any hope of reusing > >>> significant chunks of code from either of those efforts? > >> > >> Well, for Sandesha, I haven't looked at the code there at all so I don't > >> know how reasonable it is to reuse chunks of it. For WS-SecPol, I did > >> use the Rampart code as a base, but it pretty much ended up as a > >> complete re-write by the time I was done with it. Sandesha might be > >> in the same ball park. > > > > It would be nice to share some part of the implementation to save the > > development and maintenance cost. > > But I also have a feeling that using Sandesha won't be a shorter path > > to support WS-RM 1.1 in CXF. > > > > I am looking into some other issues of the current 1.0 implementation > > but I am also interested in this question of going for 1.1. > > > > Regards, Aki -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://dankulp.com/blog
