geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: JAXB upgrade
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:48:33 GMT
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