incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mosur Ravi, Balaji" <br...@iona.com>
Subject RE: yoko tests fail.
Date Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:55:41 GMT
I am moving the version of cxf used. Let me know if this raises any issues...

Thanks

Balaji

-----Original Message-----
From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji [mailto:bravi@iona.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:55 PM
To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org; yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: yoko tests fail.

Hi,

I think i agree with Lars and we shoud use the 2.0 release version of cxf and only when we
hit any problems we have to move to the snapshot release but again ask for a release from
cxf folks. I think we need to do this to start preparing for our 1.0 release.

- Balaji


-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Kühne [mailto:lakuehne@t-online.de]
Sent: Wed 7/4/2007 6:05 PM
To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: yoko tests fail.
 
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 July 2007 11:23, Lars Kühne wrote:
>   
>> The difference now is that the final release of CXF 2.0 has happened
>> now, so using SNAPSHOT releases is no longer needed.
>>
>> I don't know, but I hope the API cleanup happened before the final 2.0
>> release?
>>     
>
> They were marked deprecated before the final 2.0.     If you use 2.0 
> final, you would end up with warnings about using deprecated methods.   
> With 2.1-SNAPSHOT, those methods/constructors are now completely 
> removed.
>
>   

I don't follow. We can replace calls to setPhase() with super(PHASE) and 
still use 2.0 instead of 2.1-SNAPSHOT, right? It's not the java changes 
I question, those are just fine. It's only the dependencies I worry about.

I just svn updated to the current code and then tried using  
<cxf.version>2.0-incubator</cxf.version> in the trunk/pom.xml. 
Everything seems to compile just fine.

Lars

Mime
View raw message