Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS

> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to Sergey.
>
> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>
> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jholtzman@...>:
>  
>> Hi Eoghan,
>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the service
>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break the OSGI
>> service model.  Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>
>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate in both a
>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology.  For the co-located flavor,
>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service serialization... we want
>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the OSGI
>> service registry.  For the distributed topology, we want to allow adopting
>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own implementations
>> in other languages.  And finally, we want our service clients to be ignorant
>> of the current topology.  Service developers should enable their services to
>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property and using
>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the services to be
>> remote.
>>
>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks wanting to
>> stick with aegis/simple.  But it does allow projects that want all of the
>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable outside of the
>> CXF world.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Josh
>>
>>
>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>    
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with dOSGi.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>
>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense? i.e.
>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely unchanged
>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS server-side
>>> application from the get-go?
>>>
>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to think
>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's more
>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Eoghan
>>>
>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jholtzman@...>:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing questions about
>>>> his
>>>> RFC 119 webinar.  One of his answers sparked another question, and rather
>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF community a
>>>> crack
>>>> at it.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding strategy to use
>>>> with DOSGI.  Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".  I
>>>> recognize
>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the developer
>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities.  But it doesn't make sense for
>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions right
>>>> after
>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>
>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not easily usable
>>>> cross-platform.  I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a wsdl that
>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>
>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be configurable
>>>> in
>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation?  If so, I'd be happy to work on a
>>>> patch.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar.html
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>> jholtzman@...
>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>> --
>> Josh Holtzman
>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>> jholtzman@...
>> 510.529.9225
>>
>>
>>