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 were. On 2/25/11 10:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote: > 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's not good to go too much on the offensive when > things are rotting out at home. > > Glen > > On 2/25/2011 8:47 AM, Bill Burke wrote: >> 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 examples. You'll see >> that zero library downloads and minimal code is all that is required to >> interface with a fully featured messaging API. >> >> I'm sorry to plug our stuff here, but, I have to spread the word >> whenever I see somebody interested in HTTP + messaging. >> >> http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest >> >> 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. >>> >>> 2011/2/24, robert<rob...@gliesian.com>: >>>> 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! >>>> >>>> > > -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com
