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: local policy)
Message-ID: <5330A1C8.7020209@sosnoski.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:21:12 +1300
From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@sosnoski.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
References: <1E02D10B-407A-47B9-A4C0-BE0EFEE22909@apache.org>
 <BEC6A61E-0C47-4238-9A0D-4C8FC3AE3347@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <BEC6A61E-0C47-4238-9A0D-4C8FC3AE3347@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

+1 removing SOAP TCP

+1 (to warning people for now, dropping Java 6 in an upcoming 3.x release)

+1 2.6 final

   - Dennis

On 03/25/2014 07:49 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1 to removing the unfinished GSOC� makes no sense to keep it.
>
> +1 to Java 6, but I would mark it as deprecated and be removed in a future release.  Java 6 is EOL�d and I think we need to move with the times.
>
> +1 to a 2.6 final.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>>
>> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding?  It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago.  However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not �finished� in time.   No one has ever picked it up to finish it.  Thus, it�s incomplete, it doesn�t work correctly, won�t actually interoperate with anything, etc�  It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra �provided� deps in pom, etc�.    Plus, it never caught on.    If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT.   I just don�t see that happening.  (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses  much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
>>
>> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level?   This *IS* a �.0� release which could be a good time to consider this.   I really don�t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we�ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it.  (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7)    Anyway, something to think about.    I�d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we�ll go Java7 for one of the later releases.      I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
>>
>> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6?   Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a �final� 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch?   Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK�s which is certainly something I�m keen on.   Never got Java5 working on my Mac.  :-)     That said, it�s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts on the above?
>>
>> -- 
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>