0

How portable or compatible is JBossWS-CXF? My impression is that it is a "hybrid" because of a statement on the JBoss web site that states that it supports "almost all" of the features of CXF. If the goal is to produce services packaged as SAR files that can easily be deployed to application servers other than JBoss, if necessary, then should I stick with vanilla Apache CXF or use JBossWS-CXF?

Jacob Gabrielson
  • 34,800
  • 15
  • 46
  • 64
naql
  • 25
  • 5
  • To amend my question, I know now that SAR files are peculiar to JBoss and are for "services" that extend the server. Normally, web services would be deployed in a WAR file, or a WAR file packaged into an EAR. – naql Mar 15 '13 at 14:18

1 Answers1

2

If you stick with "pure JAX-WS" stuff, then the services should be completely portable to other applications servers. The hybrid nature comes from allowing a lot of the extra CXF features that don't have any equivalence in the JAX-WS spec. For example, if you use CXF's support for WS-Security, then the application would not be directly portable to another app server (unless they also use CXF). You would need to port that part of the code/configuration to whatever configuration is required for WS-Security on that app server.

Daniel Kulp
  • 14,447
  • 4
  • 45
  • 37
  • Thanks for your answer. This service is to be deployed in a DoD setting, so support for WS-Security was one of the selection criteria. The decision was between CXF and JBossWS-CXF, and management had expressed a desire not to be bound to JBoss. Ultimately, it was decided to go with JBossWS-CXF since we *are* currently using JBoss and we might as well take advantage of integration features, which mainly seem to consist of reduced CXF configuration. If we later migrate from JBoss we could simply add any CXF configuration needed. – naql Mar 15 '13 at 14:28