geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shiva Kumar H R" <>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Moving JAXB classes from GEP to G (was Shifting from xmlbean to JAXB in PlanCreator)
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:26:55 GMT
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Kevan Miller <>wrote:

> On Jul 29, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> I too am +1 to moving JAXB classes from Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP) to
> Geronimo (G). That way in addition to GEP, G's deployment system in future,
> Plan Creator and may be some others too will reap the benefits of JAXB.
> One concern however is about "where should the JAXB classes be moved to?" I
> see two ways for this (please correct me if I am wrong here):
> A) Move JAXB code into server (
> as a new module
> or plug-in and release it along with server.
> B) Move JAXB code into specs (
> and release it
> whenever the schema changes. (for ex. I see geronimo-application-2.0.xsd has
> not changed across G 2.0, 2.1 & 2.2, however G2.0 had plugins-1.2.xsd, while
> G2.1 & G2.2 have plugins-1.3.xsd).
> And below is my reasoning to consider Approach-B:
> i) GEP has traditionally supported previous releases of G too. For. ex. in
> addition to current G2.1 (and its minor versions), GEP also supports G2.0. A
> major reason behind this I think is to allow easier porting of applications
> from one version to another.
> ii) Now, if we move away JAXB classes from GEP and put it into G server
> (approach-A), then these JAXB classes will only be available starting from
> G2.2 onwards and will probably support only latest version of G schemas. So
> how should GEP support previous versions of G servers and G schemas?
> iii) If however, we move JAXB classes into G specs and release a new
> spec-jar everytime a new version of G schema comes up, then GEP will easily
> be able to support multiple versions of G server & G schemas.
> Hi Shiva,
> Can you point us to the JAXB classes that you are referring to?

Thanks Kevan for looking into this. Here it is:

> geronimo/specs contain our EE specs. I'm having trouble imagining why we
> would start including non-EE artifacts in specs. Doesn't mean that we can't
> achieve desired results from a different location.
> Possible that this work could be associated with migrating to use CDDL
> licensed deployment descriptor xsd's (and not use comment-removed xsd's
> generated from tck).
> --kevan


View raw message