Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96662 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2010 08:25:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Jan 2010 08:25:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 15803 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jan 2010 08:25:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 15716 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jan 2010 08:25:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 15708 invoked by uid 99); 14 Jan 2010 08:25:56 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:25:56 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [98.136.44.63] (HELO smtp108.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com) (98.136.44.63) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:25:50 +0000 Received: (qmail 50847 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2010 08:25:28 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=evGKx20Gour/sIV5pdKCmAvjte4915ugz7TffZ9/+l00yMwp0TN67KJugLXRzQgfH3avo8ntJHksJgsnLmvTvtxFBvNANETLO5WV81BFgmC5o2HOQUQ2NRoUI+iShDzM0oTfI30pAEfyv2miAbmt8ySRojAZ6kHI5uKYt5cmTig= ; Received: from 076-076-148-215.pdx.net (david_jencks@76.76.148.215 with plain) by smtp108.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2010 00:25:28 -0800 PST X-Yahoo-SMTP: .9oIUzyswBANsYgUm_5uPui0skTnzGJXJQ-- X-YMail-OSG: v591sj0VM1kfoy50JUPe89M3AE48Z2gQ_DI_ejub_.PUFhGdKwyh3l8YsFEDMu.zFPJ0kZ4uaoosDuzeIWHL9G7hRKcprkm6JS2XkYpec0o1OidLiifom8uJmY2V1_JNCFpTVlvo6dp8jycZxqcn7NfYR57nPCEMqLkgdEaUSVwfM.apa4pYdBZ.HlWPYWoL1AeQSO7SaeKs2jdNNku1lm9xBWDWZe7_zsQdU4emOLLibRvPRrrpbGBd.NYy0ZkPkBmzinUq.4bE4KUJ0R8y.omoZIIVJeOMLkdRlUt9.52mXVZCS4_25nzQ92qEDtW8t04mfMTduhwxJN5WvDBkJHGxQOQ5bGzh6mr8083CYRvx1CFlHc20jfB.bObS.swgFswV X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-Id: <9F8AB34C-78F3-4096-AE1C-F3E8EF8DD702@yahoo.com> From: David Jencks To: dev@geronimo.apache.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-19--465001224 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: cxf bundles Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:25:23 -0800 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) --Apple-Mail-19--465001224 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:44 PM, David Jencks wrote: > 1. is there a need for the 2 tools jars to be in the same bundle as > the minimal bundle? Maybe we could use minimal + the other two jars > individually bundleized. > 2. do the other jars in the minimal bundle provide generally useful > functionality? > 3. how much is exposed unnecessarily if the individual jars were > bundleized? this would be "nothing" if we had a core bundle with everything else fragment bundles. thanks david jencks > 4. Have we approached cxf about creating the appropriate bundles > there? Its pretty unlikely we will be ready to release g 3 before > they do another release. > > thanks > david jenkcs > On Jan 13, 2010, at 7:30 PM, Rex Wang wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I am looking into "GERONIMO-5016 Enable cxf in Geronimo 3.0". There >> is an issue I think need discuss first before I drive further. Not >> like axis, the cxf community did not release their jars as a >> bundle. Instead they made 2 separate distributions named "cxf- >> bundle" and "cxf-bundle-minimal" to contain the different set of >> their components. For instance: >> The cxf-bundle-minimal bundle contains 17 components: >> cxf-common-utilities >> cxf-common-schemas >> cxf-api >> cxf-rt-core >> cxf-rt-transports-http >> cxf-rt-transports-http-jetty >> cxf-rt-transports-jms >> cxf-rt-bindings-soap >> cxf-rt-databinding-aegis >> cxf-rt-databinding-jaxb >> cxf-rt-frontend-jaxws >> cxf-rt-frontend-simple >> cxf-rt-databinding-xmlbeans >> cxf-rt-ws-security >> cxf-rt-ws-policy >> cxf-rt-ws-addr >> cxf-rt-ws-rm >> but what we need are just following 13: >> cxf-api >> cxf-common-utilities >> cxf-rt-core >> cxf-rt-bindings-xml >> cxf-rt-bindings-soap >> cxf-rt-databinding-jaxb >> cxf-rt-frontend-jaxws >> cxf-rt-frontend-simple >> cxf-rt-transports-http >> cxf-rt-ws-addr >> cxf-rt-ws-security >> cxf-tools-common >> cxf-tools-java2ws >> You can see the "cxf-tools-common" & "cxf-tools-java2ws" are not >> included by "cxf-bundle-minimal". >> The "cxf-bundle" contains all the 13 components we need, but it >> will import a great many other components, which will not only >> bring a lot of jobs to exclude un-necessary jars when build our cxf >> plugins, but also increase the size of new G3.0. >> >> So I see 2 ways to pull cxf bundles in: >> 1. Use the cxf-bundle-minimal and make a new private bundle that >> contains "cxf-tools-common" & "cxf-tools-java2ws" in Geronimo. >> 2. Make a private cxf bundle customized by ourselves which only >> contains the above 13 packages >> >> I suggest the approach #2. Any comments? >> >> Thanks >> >> -- >> Lei Wang (Rex) >> rwonly AT apache.org > --Apple-Mail-19--465001224 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jan 13, 2010, = at 11:44 PM, David Jencks wrote:

1. is there a need for the 2 = tools jars to be in the same bundle as the minimal bundle?  Maybe = we could use minimal + the other two jars individually = bundleized.
2. do the other jars in the minimal bundle provide = generally useful functionality?
3. how much is exposed = unnecessarily if the individual jars were = bundleized?

this would be = "nothing" if we had a core bundle with everything else fragment = bundles.

thanks
david = jencks
Hi

I am looking into "GERONIMO-5016 Enable cxf in = Geronimo 3.0". There is an issue I think need discuss first before I = drive further. Not like axis, the cxf community did not release their = jars as a bundle. Instead they made 2 separate distributions named = "cxf-bundle" and "cxf-bundle-minimal" to contain the different set of = their components. For instance:
The cxf-bundle-minimal bundle = contains 17 components:
cxf-common-utilities
cxf-common-schemas
cxf-api
cxf-rt-cor= e
cxf-rt-transports-http
cxf-rt-transports-http-jetty
cxf-rt-tran= sports-jms
= cxf-rt-bindings-soap
cxf-rt-databinding-aegis
cxf-rt-databinding-jax= b
cxf-rt-frontend-jaxws
cxf-rt-frontend-simple
cxf-rt-databinding= -xmlbeans
cxf-rt-ws-security
cxf-rt-ws-policy
cxf-rt-ws-addr
= cxf-rt-ws-rm
but what we need are just following 13:
cxf-api
cxf-common-utilities
cxf-rt-core
cxf-rt-bindings-x= ml
cxf-rt-bindings-soap
cxf-rt-databinding-jaxb
= cxf-rt-frontend-jaxws
cxf-rt-frontend-simple
cxf-rt-transports-http<= br>cxf-rt-ws-addr
cxf-rt-ws-security
cxf-tools-common
cxf-tools-j= ava2ws
You can see the "cxf-tools-common" & = "cxf-tools-java2ws" are not included by "cxf-bundle-minimal".
The = "cxf-bundle" contains all the 13 components we need, but it will import = a great many other components, which will not only bring a lot of jobs = to exclude un-necessary jars when build our cxf plugins, but also = increase the size of new G3.0.

So I see 2 ways to pull cxf = bundles in:
1. Use the cxf-bundle-minimal and make a new private = bundle that contains "cxf-tools-common" & "cxf-tools-java2ws" in = Geronimo.
2. Make a private cxf bundle customized by ourselves which = only contains the above 13 packages

I suggest the approach #2. = Any comments?

Thanks

--
Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org

=
= --Apple-Mail-19--465001224--