geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: JAXB upgrade
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:42:13 GMT
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?

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