Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of daniel.kulp@iona.com
 designates 63.65.132.112 as permitted sender)
From: Daniel Kulp <daniel.kulp@iona.com>
Organization: IONA
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: JAXB upgrade
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:17:01 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: dev@geronimo.apache.org
References: <5eb405c70702281225w1f580cb1j86cea450aa66b759@mail.gmail.com>
 <200703051154.55698.daniel.kulp@iona.com>
 <7b774c950703050901yeee5c68madad8d9ae0de6ec4@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7b774c950703050901yeee5c68madad8d9ae0de6ec4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200703051217.02176.daniel.kulp@iona.com>

On Monday 05 March 2007 12:01, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Well that settles that!
>
> Do you know: are they changing the spec? Or are they just pulling their
> implementation?

They are changing it slightly.   It has something to do with the "Last Call 
Working Draft" of the "Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata" 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-addr-metadata-20070202/ having some 
changes in it.   They didn't want 2.1 out there that's incompatible with 
it, or something like that. 

I don't think it's API changes, but it may be.   Just javadoc, docs, and 
possibly spec compliance (optional vs required type changes).   Not really 
sure at this point.

In anycase, I'm removing it from our builds.   Tests are running now.

Dan


> - 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

-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog