santuario-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raul Benito <raul.benito.gar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JSR 105 integration plan
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:04:26 GMT
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.

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/
> 


-- 
http://r-bg.com

Mime
View raw message