I don't want to feed a flamewar but if we are in confession mode I must
say my experience is the direct opposite from yours...
On Friday 30 May 2008, Abid Hussain wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> I have to say that client generation using Axis2 is really much easier.
> Here are the reasons:
> - In case you just want to call some remote operations (what usually is
> enough for me) without any extra handlers and stuff you need NO
> configuration files at all.
On the other hand running the wsdl2java step is not required since the
apache-cxf
creates the proxy client on the fly. This way the remote calls are feeling
natural and you don't have to create weird proxies to abstract the fact that
you are calling code via ws.
> - No extra configuration needed when calling a service via https.
Unless you don't have a valid certificate where then you have to do weird
tricks with the security.
> - No wsdl-file needed after you generated the code using WSDL2Java.
no wsdl2java at all
> - Only half as much of jars are needed.
true but the size is the only thing that matters and in my experience
the apache-cxf client jars weighs 30% more than the axis2 jars
> It took me at least two days to get a client working using cxf - using
> axis2 it took me about 2 hours.
>
The opposite is true for me but the time scale varies...
Also I found that the apache-cxf devs were __extremely helpful__. That doesn't
mean the axis2-dev are unfriendly just that my problems were solved really
fast in the apache-cxf case.
Another selling point is the (I haven't tried it) native js support. This is
apache-cxf 2.1 feature and I am sure it will feel more natural that
soapclient.js
Vassilis
