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 <bbu...@redhat.com>: > 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 >
