cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Pell <ja...@pellcorp.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 and JAXB and 3.0.1
Date Wed, 28 May 2014 22:13:58 GMT
I would think getting users to modify a pom to exclude jaxb core is
acceptable for 3.0.1. I certainly would not have a problem especially if it
were in the release notes and clearly highlighted.

We use our own version of jaxb jaxb facets. But it will be sometime before
we upgrade to 3.x anyway.

Most likely not till 3.1
On 29/05/2014 12:41 AM, "Daniel Kulp" <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:

>
> There is a new version of JAXB available in central (2.2.10-b140310.1920)
> that allows it to work better with Java 8.   All the CXF tooling tests now
> pass.  There is a new single failure in the jaxws systests and of course
> all the OSGi and JIBX related things still fail.   Thus, it’s a step in the
> right direction.
>
> HOWEVER, there is a minor incompatibility with it and JAXB 2.2.7 that
> we’ve been using so I want to bring this up for discussion before updating
> master to use this for 3.0.1.   With 2.2.7, we had just two jaxb related
> jars:  jaxb-impl and jaxb-xjc.   With 2.2.10, it adds a third:  jaxb-core.
>   For the most part, people that get JAXB transitively from CXF won’t have
> any issue as I can update our poms to bring that in as well.   However,
> anyone that excludes JAXB when grabbing CXF would have to update their poms
> to also exclude that jar.
>
> So, the question is: is that kind of thing OK for 3.0.1 or would it need
> to wait for 3.1?   Personally, I’d like to get it in for 3.0.1 as it brings
> us closer to having support for Java8.  In particular, the command line
> tools in bin (wsdl2java, etc….) would work.
>
> Another note:  the jaxb stuff in “com.sun.xml.bind” in maven central are
> now shaded versions of stuff  in org.glassfish.jaxb.  Thus, longer term, we
> likely should flip to the org.glassfish versions.  That’s an even bigger
> change and not something I’d like to do for 3.0.1 though.
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>

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