santuario-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Mullan <Sean.Mul...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JSR 105 integration plan
Date Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:49:01 GMT
Raul Benito wrote:
> Also, +1 for me. I think is a good plan. 
> To have a bugfix CVS branch with 1.x API and JSR105.
> And 2.x JSR105 only branch. 
> 
> Really good.
> 
> Regarding the 1,3 version. I was thinking of adding stax/sax API but
> perhaps it is better to concentrate in JSR105.

Do you have any of the stax/sax API done yet? It's possible it may be 
adapted to work as a JSR 105 provider (JSR 105 is designed to be a DOM 
independent API).

--Sean

> 
> Regards,
> 
> On 7/21/05, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Awesome. Am all for it. +1 to 1.4 release with JSR 105 support.
>>
>>-- dims
>>
>>On 7/21/05, Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm happy to announce that we're (IBM & Sun) finally ready to contribute
>>>the JSR 105 [1] (Java XML DSig) implementation back to Apache. As you
>>>might know the JSR 105 reference implementation is largely based on the
>>>Apache Java XMLSec implementation, and we'll be contributing the API and
>>>additional code that was necessary to retrofit Apache's implementation.
>>>
>>>I have some ideas about the best way to integrate this code, and I would
>>>like to share that with you and see if you have any other advice or
>>>suggestions.
>>>
>>>I think a two phased approach is best. Phase 1 would consist of a
>>>release in the next 1-3 months and phase 2 would be a longer term
>>>release in the next 6 months.
>>>
>>>The purpose of phase 1 is to release JSR 105 as quickly as possible so
>>>the Apache XMLSec community can start using and working on it in the
>>>near term. The current JSR 105 implementation works pretty much
>>>out-of-the-box with XMLSec v1.2.1 with minimal changes to the Apache
>>>source code. This phase 1 release would not break API compatibility and
>>>allow developers to migrate to JSR 105 at their own speed. For phase 1,
>>>I think a 1.4 release makes most sense, since I know Raul is close to
>>>releasing a 1.3 bug-fix/performance improvement release.
>>>
>>>Phase 2 would be a longer-term release and would consist of removing
>>>redundant code and APIs and generally making a cleaner fit beneath the
>>>JSR 105 APIs. This means that API compatibility would be broken so it
>>>would have to be a 2.0 release.
>>>
>>>What do people feel about this plan?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Sean
>>>
>>>[1]: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=105
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message