cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Al Forbes <forbes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CXF-5183 and javax.ws.rs-api
Date Thu, 03 Oct 2013 09:18:14 GMT
Hi Sergey,

I understand the backward compatibility for exist 2.7.x users - although if
they have any other dependencies that need javax.ws.rs-api (such as Jersey)
they will run into problems.

Could a 2.8.x branch solve this issue? Identical to 2.7.x, but with the the
released rs-api 2.0. I believe it's a fairly minor change - but of course
there is extra work to maintain two branches. On the plus side it would
make migrating from 2.8.x to 3.0.x easier.

Thanks,
Al


On 3 October 2013 10:53, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 02/10/13 21:40, Al Forbes wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there any chance of re-looking at
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CXF-5183<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5183>
>>
>> The dependency on javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api:**jar:2.0-m10 makes it
>> really
>> hard to get this integrated. It would be really helpful if the dependency
>> was on 2.0.
>>
>> m10 was such a random release - between m1 and m16...
>>
>>
> As far as I recall, the main changes between m10 and final API were to do
> with Configuration/Configurable/**DynamicFeature, not the main-stream
> parts of the whole 2.0 API.
>
> We had a discussion at a time about supporting the RC/final API in 2.7.x,
> the feedback I got (some from our Talend team) was that it can destabilize
> our own product offering, example, our ESB depends on 2.7.x and various CXF
> RS features are actively utilized at the tooling/runtime levels, so the
> stability of 2.7.x was super important.
>
> I agree the downside for many of CXF JAX-RS users is that they still can
> not use 2.0 API in a released CXF distribution and of course the users
> would like to work with the latest API.
>
> I should say though that 2.0 work is completed for CXF 3.0-SNAPSHOT, it
> all looks good with the early TCK (some issues may be still there as the
> early TCK as not very complete but overall it all looks OK), optional
> BeanValidation API is still not supported, we have CXF JIRAs for that, but
> I'm not considering it a very high priority issue for the initial CXF 3.0
> release
>
>
>  I'm assuming 3.x is still a long way off.
>>
>
> We are going to make a decision shortly on when we will do a 3.0 RC
> release, AFAIK the main outstanding piece of work for CXF 3.0 is the tuning
> of WS-Security WSS4J Streaming API,
>
> Thanks, Sergey
>
>
>> Thanks
>> Al
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message