Mailing-List: contact cxf-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: split manifest for jdk6 support
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:00:15 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <477DCDAF.2070606@iona.com> <47818D90.5090703@iona.com>
 <3e4603610801080315i57e2ec34yd13dafcdf20dbc8f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e4603610801080315i57e2ec34yd13dafcdf20dbc8f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200801091100.15415.dkulp@apache.org>


Personally, I'm -1 to this as it provides very little value to the user 
(IMO) but will create LARGE headaches for us to support it.

The only real benifit to the user is a slightly smaller download.   In 
the grand scheme of things, that's minor.

For us, we would need to maintain additional assemblies that are mostly 
copies of the originals.   If you add/change something, we'd need to 
make sure we update two places.   We also would need to 
maintain/generate two different NOTICE files, it doubles the amount of 
stuff we need to audit at release time, etc...   Snapshot deploys would 
take longer.     I personally thing we just need to make sure the kit 
works properly for both jdk1.5 and 1.6.   Maybe add a "setup_jdk16" 
script or something that helps.   


Dan


On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Bozhong Lin wrote:
> After making CXF to support JDK6, I wonder if there is a necessary to
> make two different distributions for download, i.e., one for JDK5 and
> one for JDK6.  The distribution for JDK6 can skip packaging those jars
> available in JDK6.
>
> What do you guys think on this?
>
> Regards,
> Bo
>
> On Jan 7, 2008 10:25 AM, Jeff Zhang <jeff.zhang@iona.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Glen Mazza wrote:
> > > Another issue to keep in mind is that even if you are using JDK6,
> > > you will probably someday need to override one of the JARs already
> > > in the JDK6 with a newer version to fix some bug.  So make sure
> > > your solution is flexible enough to handle these types of
> > > scenarios.
> > >
> > > Glen
> > >
> > > Am Freitag, den 04.01.2008, 13:15 -0500 schrieb Daniel Kulp:
> > >> Out of curiosity, why does having that stuff in the manifest
> > >> cause a problem?    The classloaders should, by default, grab the
> > >> stuff from jre/lib first anyway.  Thus, the stuff in the manifest
> > >> should be ignored.
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >> On Friday 04 January 2008, Jeff Zhang wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I work on CXF jdk6 support. My proposal is split
> > >>> cxf-manifest-incubator.jar into 2 manifest jars, one includes
> > >>> all javax jars embedded in JDK6, such as jaxws, jaxb, stax, jws,
> > >>> annotation, etc..., we can call it cxf-specs-manifest.jar. And
> > >>> another one contains the rest jars.
> > >>>
> > >>> If users use JDK5, they include both manifest jars in classpath,
> > >>> if use JDK6, they can only include one manifest. For samples
> > >>> shipped with CXF, we can define rule in common_build.xml, it get
> > >>> JDK version from OS environment, and put right manifest jar into
> > >>> classpath.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you think it reasonable?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Jeff


-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog