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 sberyozkin@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.44 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <524D412D.1010002@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:04:29 +0100
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: CXF-5183 and javax.ws.rs-api
References: 
 <CAE-F_+or9w6tree-Jo6Kh60t3DMgYP08hXStZmGsiEk_ASr-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <524D3086.4090702@gmail.com>
 <CAE-F_+oHSzMnShRUvPpNbf7=O4ZzUGZwvi9p2gJ_4ztOBmB8ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAE-F_+oHSzMnShRUvPpNbf7=O4ZzUGZwvi9p2gJ_4ztOBmB8ww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Al,
On 03/10/13 10:18, Al Forbes wrote:
> 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.
>
3.0 RC is not that far away, we are not talking about months, but weeks; 
CXF 3.0 has many major components so it takes a bit of time to make all 
of the relevant work completed, but it is getting close to the initial 
release, I'll update you when we have more info.
In meantime, please start experimenting with 3.0-SNAPSHOT; as I said 
JAX-RS 2.0 API work is mostly complete, no major updates are expected 
there at all, going to be stable enough...

Cheers, Sergey

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>