Glen, Please lighten up. I really don't think these types of attacks are appropriate here. Thise seems more like the Axis list response than a CXF list response, and that's not a good thing IMO.
In general, if a user on a CXF list has a problem that is better met with a competing product, I'm a firm believer that: 1) We SHOULD let the user know about that. At the end of the day, the user has a problem that they need a solution for. If that means using something else, I'm OK with that. BUT: 2) We should figure out WHY the other solution is better and determine if it's something we can address in CXF. Possibly log some JIRA's or something. Anyway, please try to keep things more cordial and pleasant. Thanks! Dan On Friday 25 February 2011 10:01:52 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! -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://www.talend.com
