geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JAXB upgrade
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:58:52 GMT
Yep...so for this reason I would probably ask that CXF hang on JAXB 2.0
for the time being.

Jeff

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Sun sometimes allows implementations to certify using a newer api then
> was in required by the original JEE specification.  My guess is that the
> next version of Glassfish uses these apis, so hopefully if we ask,
> they'll give us new signature files or a patched TCK.
> 
> Anyway, to find out someone will have to ask on the Apache open-jcp
> list, and that person will have to commit to hounding that list until we
> get an up or down response.  It is a lot of work and can take
> weeks/months to get a response, so I suggest you don't agree to take on
> this task unless you are going to have the time and commitment.
> 
> -dain
> 
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>> AFAICT...the TCK for JAXB appears to be for 2.0.:
>>
>> https://jaxb.dev.java.net/tck.html
>>
>> and it appears that particular TCK is open to all ;-)
>>
>> On that web site it clearly states:
>>
>> **************************************************
>> Compatibility artifacts are available as follows:
>>
>>     * The JAXB 2.0 PFD specification.
>> **************************************************
>>
>> We probably need to kick this up to Sun, but for safety, I would stick
>> with 2.0 until we hear back from them.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
>>>> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
>>>
>>> Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation can
>>> see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in this
>>> case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and no
>>> less" policy.  Which means that say we wanted to start implementing the
>>> new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods on the
>>> InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
>>>
>>> I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs jaxb
>>> 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0.  Someone needs to look at the tck to
>>> know for sure.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Dan
>>>>
>>>> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
>>>>> I'm not sure how that affects things.
>>>>
>>>> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need
>>>> it. I
>>>>>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
>>>>>> day),
>>>>>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>>>> like
>>>>>> WS-A
>>>>>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>>>>>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>>>>>> idea if
>>>>>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>>>>>> require 2.0?
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
figure
>>>>>>> out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First
of
>>>>>>> all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>>>> applications
>>>>>>> in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
>>>>>>> using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>> JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
sure
>>>> they
>>>>>>> are ok. And I think in general  that should be ok but potentially
>>>> time
>>>>>>> consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>>>>>>> testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
JAXB
>>>>>>> 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>>>> things
>>>>>>> supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>>>>>>> another thing for us to worry about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
it be
>>>>>>> possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dan Diephouse
>>>>>> Envoi Solutions
>>>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Dan Diephouse
>>>> Envoi Solutions
>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Mime
View raw message