I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and the RI impl is already out:
Everyone else ok with it?
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.
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.
> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
>> 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 <email@example.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
>> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
>> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>> > 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
>> > 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