geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: removal of spring dependencies from cxf module
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:06:51 GMT


Kevan Miller wrote:
> K. Can you explain to me what functionality is being taken away? Dan
> said function would be lost, but then listed functionality and said that
> configuring them "becomes quite a bit harder". Nor do I know how this
> increased complexity would be who bears the burden for things becoming
> quite a bit harder.
>

Read Dan's comment/answer.  The functionality is the ease of
configuration, etc.  For someone who has used Spring extensively, I
think its a huge loss not to be able to leverage it.

> I want the client application to be in control of the Spring version. I
> don't want the Geronimo server environment to dictate the version of
> Spring used by the client application. At present, we are dictating the
> version of Spring. I think this needs to change. I don't think this is a
> result of our ClassLoader structure.
>

What are you talking about...this is clearly a classloader problem.  The
fact the client and the server are fighting over whose version of Spring
is the "right one" points its finger at a classloader issue.  The fact
the client has to set the hidden classes attribute on plans clearly
shows this is a classloader problem.  Am I missing or not seeing
something here?  If so, please point it out...perhaps I'm simply not
getting it.  Clashing versions is about as classloader related as it gets.


>>
>>>
>>> I have no real issue with our CXF server module requiring Spring.
>>>
>>> I'm less happy if we're requiring that Spring be accessible from a
>>> client application module to configure CXF web services client
>>> capabilities.
>>>
>>> I'm way less happy if we require the same Spring instance be accessible
>>> from the CXF server module and the client application module. This is
>>> the case, at the moment. I think this needs to be changed.
>>>
>>
>> Why should it be changed?  This seems to work with someone using
>> Tomcat...just not Geronimo.
> 
> Does Tomcat embed CXF? Does CXF distribute Tomcat binaries configured to
> provide CXF-based web services? Or does CXF distribute CXF and
> associated dependent jars which can be packaged into a WAR and
> subsequently deployed into a web container?

CXF can certainly be used in Tomcat.  Tomcat doesn't distribute it, but
it certainly can be used with that web container.  It appears the only
project who has this problem is Geronimo :-/


> 
> I believe it's the latter. In which case, you're not giving me an
> apples-to-apples comparison, IMO.
> 

Well...lets agree to disagree.  The bottom line is we are castrating
other projects because we have messed up classloaders.  That, IMNSHO,
has nothing to do with apples-to-apples comparison and we are creating a
treatment to the problem rather than a panacea.

Do as you may, but call my issue with how we are handling this a
dissenting voice.  I am not in agreement with this action.

> --kevan
> 

Mime
View raw message