You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2009/03/10 20:28:45 UTC
Schema validation via Woodstox ... not for 2.2 :-)
Given the msv problems I've run into, the woodstox validation code
doesn't belong in 2.2.
My plan is:
1) commit current state, which is structurally relevant.
2) branch to sandbox.
3) delete the wstx-msv-validator module from the trunk.
4) extend the modularity fixes to the write side of the universe.
5) return to this topic for 2.2.x. Turning it on once the backend
works can't be a giant problem.
Re: Schema validation via Woodstox ... not for 2.2 :-)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Tue March 10 2009 9:33:14 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> I thought of a way to avoid branching and deleting, I've arranged for
> the bus extension not to register.
>
> And KK just made me a 'committer' on msv.
That's really cool.
> And said that the 'nuclear' clause was a complete mistake.
Nice. That will teach him to copy/paste without reading completely. :-)
Dan
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue March 10 2009 3:28:45 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> >> Given the msv problems I've run into, the woodstox validation code
> >> doesn't belong in 2.2.
> >>
> >> My plan is:
> >>
> >> 1) commit current state, which is structurally relevant.
> >> 2) branch to sandbox.
> >> 3) delete the wstx-msv-validator module from the trunk.
> >> 4) extend the modularity fixes to the write side of the universe.
> >> 5) return to this topic for 2.2.x. Turning it on once the backend
> >> works can't be a giant problem.
> >
> > That works for me. :-)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Schema validation via Woodstox ... not for 2.2 :-)
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I thought of a way to avoid branching and deleting, I've arranged for
the bus extension not to register.
And KK just made me a 'committer' on msv.
And said that the 'nuclear' clause was a complete mistake.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue March 10 2009 3:28:45 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Given the msv problems I've run into, the woodstox validation code
>> doesn't belong in 2.2.
>>
>> My plan is:
>>
>> 1) commit current state, which is structurally relevant.
>> 2) branch to sandbox.
>> 3) delete the wstx-msv-validator module from the trunk.
>> 4) extend the modularity fixes to the write side of the universe.
>> 5) return to this topic for 2.2.x. Turning it on once the backend
>> works can't be a giant problem.
>
> That works for me. :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
Re: Schema validation via Woodstox ... not for 2.2 :-)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Tue March 10 2009 3:28:45 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> Given the msv problems I've run into, the woodstox validation code
> doesn't belong in 2.2.
>
> My plan is:
>
> 1) commit current state, which is structurally relevant.
> 2) branch to sandbox.
> 3) delete the wstx-msv-validator module from the trunk.
> 4) extend the modularity fixes to the write side of the universe.
> 5) return to this topic for 2.2.x. Turning it on once the backend
> works can't be a giant problem.
That works for me. :-)
Thanks!
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog