OK, sounds reasonable to me on the basis of cost/benefit, and I know
there is a lot of stuff in v2.
RE: pull/push on features (satisfy expectations / promote practices)
this is always a balance and I think hard to decide in the general. But
we clearly did the right thing (IMO) when in GF V1 we decided to make
all popular frameworks work out of the box, adjusting the configuration
of our security manager.
- eduard/o
Jerome Dochez wrote:
> getting to this...
>
> it's a lot more complicated than just looking at the 109 specifics
> artifacts. Non 109 compliant web services are deployed with their web
> services as first class citizen, so it is very easy to notify ws-mgmt
> the existence of web services.
>
> For non 109 compliant, essentially cooked jaxrpc or jax-ws, there is no
> interception point at deployment and unless we would start recognizing
> specific servlet implementations used to dispatch web services requests
> to jaxrpc and jaxws runtimes, there is no way to "know". Even if we were
> to "look for" these servlets, the job would not be done, we would also
> need to start processing the jaxrpc/jaxws specific deployment
> descriptors (which are not known to Java EE containers, only
> jaxrpc/jaxws runtimes know about these today) to get all the information
> needed by ws-mgmt.
>
> that's quite a bit of work, quite low on my list...
>
> Jerome
>
> Vijay Ramachandran wrote:
>> As of now, the ws-mgmt subsystem recognizes the presence/absence of
>> webservices by looking for the presence/absence of 109 specific
>> artifacts. Hence this "restriction".
>>
>> Satish - any comments on displaying non-109 based services in the
>> admin console ?
>>
>> Vijay
>>
>> Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:
>>> Vijay -
>>>
>>> Is that an intrinsic restriction? It seems to me we are going to
>>> have a number of Web-tier based Web Services out there. Be it
>>> because they were originally developed on Tomcat or whatever. People
>>> will expect them to be visible in the console.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - eduard/o
>>>
>>> Vijay Ramachandran wrote:
>>>> Non-109 based services are just web apps as far as GF is concerned
>>>> and hence will not show up as "web services" in the admin console
>>>> even though the webservice will function as expected
>>>>
>>>> Vijay
>>>>
>>>> Ed Mooney wrote:
>>>>> Hi Vijay,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's J2EE v1.4 and not 109-based.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> Vijay Ramachandran wrote:
>>>>>> Is there a web.xml ? If so, what is the version and is it a 109
>>>>>> based service ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> vijay
>>>>>>
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>
>