Re: [DISCUSS] Branch for 2.6.x, trunk thoughts...

[Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>]

Hi
On 11/06/12 14:35, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi Dan, All,
>
> sorry for a delay
>
> On 08/06/12 20:55, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>> Not really much of a discussion, but no objections either. Thus, I'll go
>> ahead and create the branch. :-)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 01, 2012 11:10:26 AM Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>> With 2.6.1 hopefully going out shortly, I'd like to get peoples thoughts
>>> about creating a 2.6.x-fixes branch and changing trunk to target 2.7.
>>> Here is a list of some things I'd like to start thinking about for 2.7:
>>>
>>> 1) Drop support for Java 5 - this may be a bit contentious. :-) It
>>> would simplify the poms a little bit, allow use of @Override, remove
>>> some
>>> jars from the lib dir, etc... The bigger issue is that several of the
>>> things we test with and depend on are now Java 6+ such as ActiveMQ and
>>> gwt and such so we've been stuck on older versions.
>>>
> +1
>
>>> 2) Async http client - this is been on my "maybe next version of CXF"
>>> for
>>> quite a while. Since 2.3.x I think. Maybe I'll actually get to it.
>>> :-) Would definitely help with some of the Camel integration scenarios.
>>>
>>> 3) WS-Discovery - really two parts to this. Runtime support to broadcast
>>> availability and discover endpoints is the first part. Second part MAY
>>> be a simple WS-Discovery proxy service for /services.
>>>
>>> 4) SOAP/UDP - Required for #3.
>>>
>>> 5) Possible re-write of the http-jetty transport to base it off the
>>> Servlet transport or similar so it can take more advantage of things
>>> like
>>> the services list, etc... Additionally, that may make it easier to
>>> create an http-tomcat transport (which people DID ask about at CamelOne
>>> BTW).
>
> Hope the JAX-RS frontend will benefit from 2) :-)
>
>>>
>>> Those are the things *I've* been thinking on and off about. Obviously
>>> the
>>> other folks around here may have additional things. I'm sure Colm has
>>> some security things, Sergey has some REST things, etc.... :-)
>>>
> There are few new features/improvements I'd like to focus upon in the
> next 6-12 months, apart from starting to work on implementing JAX-RS 2.0:
> 1. Security related enhancements
> - Continue working with Colm and Oli on SAML-based SSO (CXF, Fediz),
> though I did not work with Fediz yet
> - OAuth 2.0 and OpendId Connect - at the very least CXF
> AuthorizationService should be able to work with OpenId Connect
> endpoints provided by the third party - this part should be fairly easy
> to implement but there's a lot of new material there so it will take a
> bit of time to test/implement
> - OAuth 2.0, Fediz and SAML - we may want to provide an option for Fediz
> to produce SAML pr even JWT assertions as recommended by the relevant
> OAuth profiles
>
> 2. 'Connecting' FIQL queries with JPA as proposed by Jeff Wang - I think
> it needs to be prioritized; possible support for the alternative OData
> language
> 3. Light weight HTTP RM support - Aki and myself talked briefly about it
> with, I'll post an update shortly - not sure it's for 2.7 though
> 4. Looks like Web Sockets can become one of the main tools for building
> Web UI. People say they are not RESTful, but users will inevitably
> expect some support for it soon enough. So perhaps we can consider
> introducing an api similar to the Continuations one CXF already has that
> will be usable with Tomcat/Jetty, or at least introduce a Jetty centric
> module - again not sure it's for 2.7 but more investigation is needed
>
>
>>> So I guess the big question is: anyone OBJECT to creating the
>>> 2.6.x-fixes
>>> branch now?
>
> The only concern I had about it (it came to me when I was on holidays
> :-)) was where we'd have JAX-RS 2.0 implemented. Postponing it till 2.8
> may not be ideal as introducing 2.8 say early in 2013 will give us 5
> branches (including the trunk) and starting implementing it later in
> 2013 will be a bit late.
>
> I think the right thing to do would be to state upfront that CXF 2.7
> will have at least the basic JAX-RS 2.0 support, for example, CXF 2.7.0
> will have the dependencies changed only with the base JAX-RS Response,
> UriBuilder, etc updated. CXF 2.7.1/etc will start introducing more
> support. That should work, we don't have to get all JAX-RS 2.0
> implemented in one go

I've started the upgrade process on the trunk only, I think we will have 
a fairly basic server-side JAX-RS 2.0 support in CXF 2.7.0, but the 
process has started :-).

Cheers, Sergey

>
> Does it sound reasonable ?
>
> Cheers, Sergey