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 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:01:43 GMT
Well that settles that!

Do you know: are they changing the spec? Or are they just pulling their
implementation?

- Dan

On 3/5/07, Daniel Kulp <daniel.kulp@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'll pull the JAX-WS 2.1 stuff now.   I just received word from Sun that
> they are pulling JAX-WS 2.1 anyway.  (they are respinning it to address
> some issues with the WS-A stuff)    Thus, it will be removed from the
> maven repository ASAP and our builds will fail.   Give my 1/2 hour or so.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Monday 05 March 2007 11:21, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> > Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> > from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
> > lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and
> > > the RI impl is already out:
> > >
> > > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> > >
> > > Everyone else ok with it?
> > > Cheers,
> > > - Dan
> > >
> > > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > > > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the
> > > > 2.1 specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened.
> > > > Getting information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult,
> > > > but perhaps if we started now and now and are sufficiently
> > > > persistent we will eventually find out something useful.
> > > >
> > > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > > > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > david jencks
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>



-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Mime
View raw message