Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of craiger@tataryn.net designates
 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: Re: To spring 3 or not to spring 3
From: Craig Tataryn <craiger@tataryn.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinkYZVhTB-ihP1BLfhlr2FVjFVPhsREDrXILldt@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:11:03 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FD71AF54-E258-4E86-9854-FF6BA8B48608@tataryn.net>
References: <201007161714.24548.dkulp@apache.org>
 <AANLkTinkYZVhTB-ihP1BLfhlr2FVjFVPhsREDrXILldt@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@cxf.apache.org

I think +1 for Spring 3, if a company is going to make the leap to CXF =
2.3, they are probably willing to make the jump to Spring 3.0.

Would there actually be any @since 3.0 features you'd use from Spring?  =
Or would it be possible they could still operate with 2.5.6 by doing =
maven excludes on the 3.0 transient deps?

No comment on Jetty, I only use Jett for testing purposes and not for =
actually deploying too so I think even if there was something with Jetty =
7 which was screwing me up I could still continue BAU with say Tomcat.

Craig.

On 2010-07-17, at 6:23 AM, Cyrille Le Clerc wrote:

> +1 for upgrading to Spring 3 and Jetty 7.
>=20
> Cyrille
>=20
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> Since we are getting close to having 2.3 ready to release, I'm kind =
of looking
>> at the various deps to see if there are updates we should grab or =
not.
>> Things like woodstox and abdera and such are pretty much no-brainers.
>>=20
>> The two main contention points are:
>> 1) Jetty from 6 to 7- Benson has started investigating this.     This =
DOES
>> involve some code changes as the Jetty packages and stuff have =
changed.
>> Thus, the http-jetty transport would be incompatible with Jetty 6.   =
However,
>> it would give us some potential new features such as support for =
continuations
>> on HTTPs. (I think)
>>=20
>> 2) Spring - should we use 3.0.0 instead of 2.5.6?    I think the =
answer for
>> this is "go ahead".   We've already have profiles to test this and =
the same
>> code seems to work OK with 2.5.6 and 3.0.0.   Just want to double =
check with
>> folks though.
>>=20
>> I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on those.
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org
>> http://dankulp.com/blog