cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Remove xml-resolver dependency
Date Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:07:49 GMT
On Monday, December 19, 2011 10:42:23 AM Jim Ma wrote:
> Okay. Then we should keep it as it was.  I just saw these common classes to
> handle the same thing in different places : jaxb-xjc.jar , Sun's JDK,
> xml-resolver.jar.   Looks like current way is the better option.

Yea.  I think so.   The only other option really is to define our own object 
that uses some level of reflection to allow use of the sun version, the pure 
Apache version, of the com.ibm version in the IBM jdk.   Generally more work 
than I think justifies the small jar.

Dan

 
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:21 AM, K Fung <kfung4cxf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would be inclined to disagree as well due to the following...
> > 
> > 1) Complications in an OSGI world. The OSGI runtime is unlikely to
> > export
> > com.sun.org.apache.xml.internal.resolver.* for usage.
> > 2) Not all JVMs could have this package. In particular, I'm thinking
> > about the IBM JDK.
> > 
> > -kl
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2011 10:20:38 AM Jim Ma wrote:
> > > > Hi ,
> > > > Since all the equivalent classes in xml-resolver.jar are all
> > > > packaged
> > 
> > in
> > 
> > > > jaxb-xjc.jar. We can change the
> > > > org.apache.cxf.catalog.CataLogManager
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > > > use com.sun.org.apache.xml.internal.resolver.* class to decrease
> > > > 82k
> > > > distribution size. If there is no objection, I am going to
> > > > commit the
> > > > change.
> > > 
> > > Yes.  I object.   jaxb-xjc is not needed at runtime.   Other than
> > > the
> > > DynamicClient, nothing uses it at runtime.   If you are just using
> > > pure
> > > jaxws,
> > > you don't need jaxb-xjc.
> > > 
> > > Thus, you may be decreasing the distribution by 82K, but you are
> > > then
> > > adding a
> > > 3.1M to the runtime requirements.    I'm not really willing to do
> > > that.
> > > 
> > > Plus, the idea of depending on something in an "internal" package
> > > fundamentally bothers me.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Daniel Kulp
> > > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Mime
View raw message