geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Remove Stax API or wstx-asl ?
Date Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:46:59 GMT
Yes, just found that we have already used the bundlized one from servicemix,
this one might be imported by some other components. It is not a big
problem.
Just check the way we use to make the service lookup work in Geronimo 3.0,
seems that :
1. If we use the api shipped in the jre, it might not work correctly in the
OSGI environment if we want to use non-ri implementation, as I found that
all our spec apis have been hacked to use OSGI service registry to lookup
service. If it does, do we need to recover some api that we removed before,
such as saaj, as in the past, IIRC, we use axis2's impl for our
geronimo-tomcat distribution.
2. I found that current logic will detect that whether there is a head named
SPI-provider in the manifest.mf file, if not, it would not scan the service
folder for mapped files. Does it work for design ? So we might need to
create our own impl-bundle, such as wstx-asl.
Any comment ? Thanks !

2010/3/25 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>

>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 24 March 2010 9:44:12 pm Ivan wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>    Just trying the latest Geronimo 3.0 build, get a CNF exception for
> the
> >> XMLInputFactory, seems that wstx-asl shipped is not a bundle.
> >>    I am thinking that since JRE 1.6 contains the API and the default
> >> implementation, do we still need to ship another one ?
> >
> > Well, I would say get rid of stax-api, but keep wstx.   I think the 4.x
> > versions of woodstox are bundles.  If not, ServiceMix has bundles for
> them.
> >
> > The parser in the JDK sucks from a performance standpoint.   We recently
> tried
> > to use the JDK parser in CXF and the complete test run took nearly 25%
> longer.
> > Adding woodstox back in brought it right back down to the normal times.
> > Testing on "real" web services backed that up.
> >
> > Basically, the in JDK Stax parser will work, but woodstox is so much
> faster.
> > If you aren't doing anything performance critical with XML, not using
> woodstox
> > might be OK.
> >
>
> I'd prefer to use our spec api jar although I won't insist on it.
>
> We should be using the servicemix woodstox bundle already -- if wstx-asl is
> still getting pulled in we need to find out how and add a maven exclusion
> for it.  If v4 is out an already a bundle, even better :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://dankulp.com/blog
>
>


-- 
Ivan

Mime
View raw message