You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2014/03/24 19:35:52 UTC
Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not “finished” in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it’s incomplete, it doesn’t work correctly, won’t actually interoperate with anything, etc… It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra “provided” deps in pom, etc…. Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don’t see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a “.0” release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don’t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we’ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I’d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we’ll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a “final” 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK’s which is certainly something I’m keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it’s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
Thoughts on the above?
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
On 2014-3-25, at 上午2:35, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>
> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not “finished” in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it’s incomplete, it doesn’t work correctly, won’t actually interoperate with anything, etc… It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra “provided” deps in pom, etc…. Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don’t see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
no objection
>
> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a “.0” release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don’t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we’ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I’d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we’ll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
+1 for still support JAVA6 for CXF 3.0, we can consider to drop JAVA6 support in CXF 3.1 or 3.2
>
> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a “final” 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK’s which is certainly something I’m keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it’s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
+1 to do a final CXF 2.6.x release after CXF 3.0 out
>
>
> Thoughts on the above?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Hi
On 24/03/14 18:35, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>
> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not “finished” in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it’s incomplete, it doesn’t work correctly, won’t actually interoperate with anything, etc… It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra “provided” deps in pom, etc…. Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don’t see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
>
+1; I guess we can also review the viability of keeping LogBrowser, but
hopefully it can be revived in 3.x with the help of the WebSocket
transport, if not then may be it can be dropped, lets see...
> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a “.0” release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don’t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we’ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I’d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we’ll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
>
We might need to wait till CXF 3.x is included in our distro and then
make a decision on dropping the 1.6 support...
> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a “final” 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK’s which is certainly something I’m keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it’s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
>
Fine with doing the final 2.6 release, 2.7.10 is expected to support
pure JAX-RS 1.1 applications
Thanks, Sergey
>
> Thoughts on the above?
>
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Aki Yoshida <el...@gmail.com>.
no objection.
2014-03-24 19:35 GMT+01:00 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>:
>
> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>
> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not "finished" in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it's incomplete, it doesn't work correctly, won't actually interoperate with anything, etc... It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra "provided" deps in pom, etc.... Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don't see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
>
> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a ".0" release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don't care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we'll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I'd be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we'll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
>
> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a "final" 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK's which is certainly something I'm keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it's also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
>
>
> Thoughts on the above?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
I agree with all of the above.
Colm.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Andrei Shakirin <as...@talend.com>wrote:
> +1 to Java 6
> +1 to a 2.6 final
> Have no any knowledge regarding unfinished GSOC, but seems to make sense
> as well.
>
> Regards,
> Andrei.
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
RE: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Andrei Shakirin <as...@talend.com>.
+1 to Java 6
+1 to a 2.6 final
Have no any knowledge regarding unfinished GSOC, but seems to make sense as well.
Regards,
Andrei.
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
+1 for dropping Java 6 support from 3.1 or 3.2 on.
+1 for stopping the 2.6.x releases
Christian
On 24.03.2014 19:35, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>
> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not “finished” in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it’s incomplete, it doesn’t work correctly, won’t actually interoperate with anything, etc… It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra “provided” deps in pom, etc…. Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don’t see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
>
> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a “.0” release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don’t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we’ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I’d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we’ll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
>
> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a “final” 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK’s which is certainly something I’m keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it’s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
>
>
> Thoughts on the above?
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Andrey Redko <dr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dan,
I would agree with guys on GSoC (don't have enough details).
Definitely +1 to Java7 and +1 to stop with 2.6.x (unless some critical
fixes, maybe).
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Andriy Redk
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute,
> but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>
> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is
> currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student
> several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation,
> it was not "finished" in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it.
> Thus, it's incomplete, it doesn't work correctly, won't actually
> interoperate with anything, etc... It pretty much just results in a bunch of
> extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra "provided" deps in pom,
> etc.... Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in
> the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don't see that
> happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from
> Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets
> and would work with recent .NET things)
>
> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a ".0"
> release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don't care
> either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we'll
> want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it.
> (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about.
> I'd be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we'll go Java7 for one of the
> later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we
> have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
>
> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to
> do a "final" 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing
> so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK's which is certainly something
> I'm keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it's
> also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
>
>
> Thoughts on the above?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Alessio Soldano <as...@redhat.com>.
On 24/03/14 19:35, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>
> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not “finished” in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it’s incomplete, it doesn’t work correctly, won’t actually interoperate with anything, etc… It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra “provided” deps in pom, etc…. Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don’t see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
No objection
> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a “.0” release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don’t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we’ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I’d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we’ll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
I agree, we could still support Java6 in 3.0, but kind of consider it
deprecated and remove support in 3.1 or 3.2.
> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a “final” 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK’s which is certainly something I’m keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it’s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
No objection to doing a final 2.6.x release.
Cheers
Alessio
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Dennis Sosnoski <dm...@sosnoski.com>.
+1 removing SOAP TCP
+1 (to warning people for now, dropping Java 6 in an upcoming 3.x release)
+1 2.6 final
- Dennis
On 03/25/2014 07:49 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1 to removing the unfinished GSOC… makes no sense to keep it.
>
> +1 to Java 6, but I would mark it as deprecated and be removed in a future release. Java 6 is EOL’d and I think we need to move with the times.
>
> +1 to a 2.6 final.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>>
>> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not “finished” in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it’s incomplete, it doesn’t work correctly, won’t actually interoperate with anything, etc… It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra “provided” deps in pom, etc…. Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don’t see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
>>
>> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a “.0” release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don’t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we’ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I’d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we’ll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
>>
>> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a “final” 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK’s which is certainly something I’m keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it’s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts on the above?
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
Re: Couple more CXF 3.0 thoughts.....
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
+1 to removing the unfinished GSOC… makes no sense to keep it.
+1 to Java 6, but I would mark it as deprecated and be removed in a future release. Java 6 is EOL’d and I think we need to move with the times.
+1 to a 2.6 final.
Jeff
On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> With 3.0 getting really close, I do realize this is kind of last minute, but wanted to throw these out real quick.
>
> Would anyone object to removing all the SOAP over TCP stuff that is currently in the SOAP binding? It was a project started by a GSoC student several years ago. However, due to the complexity and poor documentation, it was not “finished” in time. No one has ever picked it up to finish it. Thus, it’s incomplete, it doesn’t work correctly, won’t actually interoperate with anything, etc… It pretty much just results in a bunch of extra classes in the soap binding, a few extra “provided” deps in pom, etc…. Plus, it never caught on. If someone DOES want to pick it up in the future, the code could be resurrected from GIT. I just don’t see that happening. (in addition, there is the SOAP over Websockets thing from Microsoft which encompasses much of the same thing, but using Websockets and would work with recent .NET things)
>
> Any thoughts about the Java6/Java7 support level? This *IS* a “.0” release which could be a good time to consider this. I really don’t care either way at this point, but I kind of expect that by 3.1 or 3.2, we’ll want to drop Java6 anyway due to dependencies starting to require it. (example: Jetty 9 requires Java7) Anyway, something to think about. I’d be OK sticking with Java6 and saying we’ll go Java7 for one of the later releases. I suppose one thought is to keep Java6 for 3.0 so we have one version of CXF that support JAX-RS 2.0 and runs on Java6.
>
> Related to that, what about CXF 2.6? Once 3.0 is release, do we want to do a “final” 2.6.x and stop doing regular releases on that branch? Doing so would allow removing all the Java5 JDK’s which is certainly something I’m keen on. Never got Java5 working on my Mac. :-) That said, it’s also the only branch we currently have that support JAX-RS 1.1.
>
>
> Thoughts on the above?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>