W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > July 2008

NEW ISSUE: is WS-Addressing irrelevant to "SOAP over JMS"?

From: TALBOT Jacques (TJA) <Jacques.TALBOT@teamlog.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:12:35 +0200
To: "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A863DA9C49F2224A85129B1825E7B24B57C635BAF3@TLGCEX01.teamlog.intra>
De : Phil Adams [mailto:phil_adams@us.ibm.com]
Envoyé : mardi 29 juillet 2008 15:44

Have you considered using JAX-WS as the programming model for your consumer (client)?     JAX-WS provides an asynchronous API for invoking web services.  It offers both a callback and a polling model.   This is one of the advantages it has over JAX-RPC, which never included an async API.        Keep in mind that the SOAP over JMS spec does not specify a programming model for the end user application (web service consumer or provider).   It simply concerns itself with the interactions between web service runtimes.    So, the notion of a programming model (sync or async) is beyond the scope of the SOAP over JMS spec.


I agree, we are indeed using JAX-WS and I am fully aware that the WG "SOAP over JMS" has a very focused mission.
But I am still reluctant to admit that the sync/async can be dealt with entirely in the upper levels, and that the binding people (you) should not care. But I am willing to be educated !

 This is part of the  general  "hair-splitting" problem in the WS-* universe : half of the specs in W3C, another half in OASIS, all of this to be composed, but the user has to guess the recipe for composition, since ws-i.org seems to be somehow lost in the mist for a while .

My current problem is that  when we pile up: JAX-WS +  customer_favorite_WS toolkit (CXF these days) + toolkit2jms binding (currently non existing) + customer_favorite_MOM , this just does not work because  (in a nutshell)  JAX-WS is WSA friendly but  the MOM  ignores WSA.

So, at the end of the day, for asynchronous Request Reply,  it is VERY difficult in the real world to stick to the JAX-WS API, which is the objective.

That 's why I do believe that you (the JMS WG) are in the best position to align the whole stack and tell users (and provide products)  how to handle the most obvious MEPs, so that we can program them in a vendor independent way, which is the whole purpose of W3C and WS in general.

Sorry if, due to the fact that I am not really an expert, I somehow interfere with the global WG flow. At least, I believe a naive user in the loop is not that bad (I have been on the other side of the fence in a previous life).


Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 14:13:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:44 UTC