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 2010/09/17 17:10:55 UTC
CXF 2.3 packaging......
There are some jars and such on trunk that we are building and using during
testing and such that are not part of the cxf-bundle or even packaged in the
distribution at all:
cxf-wstx-msv-validation
xerces-xsd-validation
cxf-rt-databinding-sdo
cxf-rt-management-web
and all the transient deps of the above.....
So, which of the above should be added to the bundle? We could add all of
them to the bundle and just mark all their deps optional/provided.
Also, are there things in the bundle that could/should be pulled out? I'm
actually thinking of creating a separate "cxf-tools" and moving the command
line tooling things into there. Thus, the bundle would be more just the
runtime parts. Thoughts?
Another quick question: are there docs for the validation things above or the
management-web? There isn't for SDO so I'll add that to my todo as well.
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF 2.3 packaging......
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I'm getting there. You are right. cxf-wstx-msv-validation is indeed
plain schema validation for Aegis.
The other one, with xerces in its name, is the 'check for generating
bogus schema'.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Friday 17 September 2010 12:21:48 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Friday 17 September 2010 12:12:28 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
>> >> THe first two are live insofar as they deliver a real feature:
>> >> validation of the XSD that we produce in Aegis.
>> >>
>> >> The primary reason to have this feature is to catch our own mistakes:
>> >> if Aegis is coded right, it should never produce an invalid XSD.
>> >
>> > Isn't the cxf-wstx-msv-validation one also used to provide incoming
>> > schema validation for Aegis to validate the incoming message against the
>> > (hopefully valid) schema that Aegis produced? Basically, the
>> > implementation of "schema- validation"/"true" for Aegis?
>>
>> I don't remember. I'd better go look.
>
> Part of the reason I really want to get 2.3 out. I don't remember a lot of
> it either. :-(
>
> Dan
>
>
>> Honestly, I think that 'schema
>> validation' as we usually understand it can be done with JAXP API and
>> so didn't need this extra level of Xerces-only wrapping.
>>
>> > If so, that's definitely valuable and something to list in the new
>> > features and make sure it's included.
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > There are some jars and such on trunk that we are building and using
>> >> > during testing and such that are not part of the cxf-bundle or even
>> >> > packaged in the distribution at all:
>> >> >
>> >> > cxf-wstx-msv-validation
>> >> > xerces-xsd-validation
>> >> > cxf-rt-databinding-sdo
>> >> > cxf-rt-management-web
>> >> >
>> >> > and all the transient deps of the above.....
>> >> >
>> >> > So, which of the above should be added to the bundle? We could add
>> >> > all of them to the bundle and just mark all their deps
>> >> > optional/provided.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, are there things in the bundle that could/should be pulled out?
>> >> > I'm actually thinking of creating a separate "cxf-tools" and moving
>> >> > the command line tooling things into there. Thus, the bundle would
>> >> > be more just the runtime parts. Thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Another quick question: are there docs for the validation things
>> >> > above or the management-web? There isn't for SDO so I'll add that
>> >> > to my todo as well.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Daniel Kulp
>> >> > dkulp@apache.org
>> >> > http://dankulp.com/blog
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Kulp
>> > dkulp@apache.org
>> > http://dankulp.com/blog
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
>
Re: CXF 2.3 packaging......
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Friday 17 September 2010 12:12:28 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> THe first two are live insofar as they deliver a real feature:
> validation of the XSD that we produce in Aegis.
>
> The primary reason to have this feature is to catch our own mistakes:
> if Aegis is coded right, it should never produce an invalid XSD.
Isn't the cxf-wstx-msv-validation one also used to provide incoming schema
validation for Aegis to validate the incoming message against the (hopefully
valid) schema that Aegis produced? Basically, the implementation of "schema-
validation"/"true" for Aegis?
If so, that's definitely valuable and something to list in the new features
and make sure it's included.
Dan
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > There are some jars and such on trunk that we are building and using
> > during testing and such that are not part of the cxf-bundle or even
> > packaged in the distribution at all:
> >
> > cxf-wstx-msv-validation
> > xerces-xsd-validation
> > cxf-rt-databinding-sdo
> > cxf-rt-management-web
> >
> > and all the transient deps of the above.....
> >
> > So, which of the above should be added to the bundle? We could add all
> > of them to the bundle and just mark all their deps optional/provided.
> >
> >
> > Also, are there things in the bundle that could/should be pulled out?
> > I'm actually thinking of creating a separate "cxf-tools" and moving the
> > command line tooling things into there. Thus, the bundle would be more
> > just the runtime parts. Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > Another quick question: are there docs for the validation things above
> > or the management-web? There isn't for SDO so I'll add that to my todo
> > as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://dankulp.com/blog
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF 2.3 packaging......
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
THe first two are live insofar as they deliver a real feature:
validation of the XSD that we produce in Aegis.
The primary reason to have this feature is to catch our own mistakes:
if Aegis is coded right, it should never produce an invalid XSD.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> There are some jars and such on trunk that we are building and using during
> testing and such that are not part of the cxf-bundle or even packaged in the
> distribution at all:
>
> cxf-wstx-msv-validation
> xerces-xsd-validation
> cxf-rt-databinding-sdo
> cxf-rt-management-web
>
> and all the transient deps of the above.....
>
> So, which of the above should be added to the bundle? We could add all of
> them to the bundle and just mark all their deps optional/provided.
>
>
> Also, are there things in the bundle that could/should be pulled out? I'm
> actually thinking of creating a separate "cxf-tools" and moving the command
> line tooling things into there. Thus, the bundle would be more just the
> runtime parts. Thoughts?
>
>
> Another quick question: are there docs for the validation things above or the
> management-web? There isn't for SDO so I'll add that to my todo as well.
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
>
Re: CXF 2.3 packaging......
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Friday 17 September 2010 2:18:41 pm Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> > Also, are there things in the bundle that could/should be pulled out?
> > I'm actually thinking of creating a separate "cxf-tools" and moving the
> > command line tooling things into there. Thus, the bundle would be more
> > just the runtime parts. Thoughts?
>
> cxf-minimal is really "cxf-bundle - tools". May be it would make sense to
> have a cxf-jaxws only bundle, as
> cxf-bundle and cxf-minimal contain jaxrs...
Well, not really as cxf-minimal doesn't have some of the databindings, corba,
etc...
I guess my thought is that cxf-bundle is really something that could be
dropped into OSGi container (or similar) and can provide everything needed for
any runtime use of CXF. The tools aren't needed for that so pull them into a
separate cxf-tools jar.
Also, if a user depends on cxf-bundle in a maven pom, they pull in all the
tooling dependencies and such as well which really isn't required.
Likewise, this affects whats in "/lib" of the distribution. Right now, we
have cxf-2.3.0.jar which is everything. I think pulling out the tools into a
separate jar may make sense.
> > Another quick question: are there docs for the validation things above
> > or the
> > management-web? There isn't for SDO so I'll add that to my todo as
> > well.
> >
> >
> > at the moment, management-web has only atom pull/push related code and it
>
> was originally documented (and later expanded) on the jaxrs page.
Well, that page is another whole discussion point. :-) Almost too big to
find much in it.
> Tomasz
> has started documenting his browser project as well. I think once he
> pushes the code from the sandbox we can start combining the docs
Cool.
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF 2.3 packaging......
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> There are some jars and such on trunk that we are building and using during
> testing and such that are not part of the cxf-bundle or even packaged in
> the
> distribution at all:
>
> cxf-wstx-msv-validation
> xerces-xsd-validation
> cxf-rt-databinding-sdo
> cxf-rt-management-web
>
> and all the transient deps of the above.....
>
> So, which of the above should be added to the bundle? We could add all of
> them to the bundle and just mark all their deps optional/provided.
>
>
> Also, are there things in the bundle that could/should be pulled out? I'm
> actually thinking of creating a separate "cxf-tools" and moving the command
> line tooling things into there. Thus, the bundle would be more just the
> runtime parts. Thoughts?
>
>
cxf-minimal is really "cxf-bundle - tools". May be it would make sense to
have a cxf-jaxws only bundle, as
cxf-bundle and cxf-minimal contain jaxrs...
>
> Another quick question: are there docs for the validation things above or
> the
> management-web? There isn't for SDO so I'll add that to my todo as well.
>
>
> at the moment, management-web has only atom pull/push related code and it
was originally documented (and later expanded) on the jaxrs page. Tomasz has
started documenting his browser project as well. I think once he pushes the
code from the sandbox we can start combining the docs
cheers, Sergey
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
>