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