geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: xmlbeans usage in Geronimo -- upgrading to xbeans 2.0?
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:26:43 GMT

On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> On Jul 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Kenneth Tam wrote:
<big snip>
>> When you say "only used in the builders", do you mean "only used at
>> build time"?  (I'm unclear on what the term "builders" means in this
>> context).  This suggests that the runtime system never loads
>> xmlbeans-generated schema classes, which strikes me as odd.. for
>> example, aren't J2EE DDs manipulated using generated xmlbeans schema
>> classes?
> The builders convert various input, such as J2EE artifacts + geronimo 
> plans, to stored configurations.  After this conversion, no xml is 
> present so no xml processing is needed.  For the running geronimo 
> server, the builders are in a separate, optional, configuration 
> (org/apache/geronimo/RuntimeDeployer, plan is in 
> j2ee-runtime-deployer-plan.xml).  Applications normally have 
> org/apache/geronimo/Server as their parent configuration/classloader.  
> We should be able to move the xmlbeans dependency into the 
> RuntimeDeployer configuration, leaving the app's classloader 
> xmlbeans-free.
> I'm going to experiment with this a bit this afternoon.

For once, all went smoothly and xmlbeans are now a normal dependency of 
the builders, not something in the root classloader.  So, you should be 
able to use any version of xmlbeans in an app without interference.  
This should be in the soon-to-be-released M4 as well as svn.  Please 
let us know how it works.

david jencks

>> (excuse me if this is all sounding totally clueless, I've just started
>> looking at the Geronimo codebase)
>>> If we can
>>> maintain this separation there should be no problem in using any
>>> version of xmlbeans in an application, since the builder classloaders
>>> using xmlbeans and the application classloaders using xmlbeans would 
>>> be
>>> unrelated.
>>> If you want to help sort this out, your work would be extremely 
>>> welcome.
>> My main interest is in getting to the point where applications can use
>> xmlbeans v2.  If it turns out that this means geronimo's "native"
>> usage of xmlbeans also needs to be upgraded, that would be
>> unfortunate, but not surprising -- besides any issues in Geronimo, I
>> am not sure what limitations xmlbeans itself has wrt concurrent usage
>> of v1 and v2.
> I doubt it would work: I believe most of the classes have the same 
> names.
> thanks
> david jencks
>> thanks,
>> ken

View raw message