incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] CeltiXfire Project
Date Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:15:55 GMT
On 6/22/06, Davanum Srinivas <> wrote:
> Dan,
> ok. let's stick to the technical side for a minute and let me layout a logic.
> - Tuscany started with an Axis1 binding and then they added Axis2.
> When Celtix guys wanted to do the same, We welcomed Dan and got him
> cranking.
> - So Tuscany is better off now as a container that supports multiple
> soap engines.
> Are u with me so far?
> - CeltixFire's vision is to be a SOA Infrastructure project with all
> things pluggable.

Essentially aiming to be a JAX-WS/JAX-WSA/JSR181 provider (SOA's a big
space with lots of technologies so I like to be specific when talking
about it)

> - CeltixFire aims to include both ServiceMix and Tuscany

Integrate with rather than include; I doubt CeltixFire will have
ServiceMix and Tuscany inside it by default ;). Though I'd image both
ServiceMix & Tuscany might use CeltixFire inside them as a pluggable
option (ditto with Axis1/2)

> - ServiceMix and Tuscany both support multiple soap engines AFAIK.

Yes - the whole point of JBI is to support pluggable binding
components so yes ServiceMix should support every possible SOAP stack
(Axis*, CeltixFire and Sun's JAX-WS RI).

> Again, Are u with me so far?


> So, why is it a crime to ask if Axis2 can be one-of-many pluggable
> soap engine in a "SOA Infrastructure" project?

I wasn't aware of anyone saying that? AFAIK all projects are happy to
plug in different providers of things. SOA is all about integrating
different things together afterall ;).

I'm looking forward to seeing more cross-project collaboration during
the incubation.



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message