You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-dev@axis.apache.org by Tom Jordahl <to...@macromedia.com> on 2004/07/06 17:42:49 UTC
RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label
?
Sorry for the late reply, long holiday weekend.
I am inclined to stick with Axis 1.2, particularly since JAX-RPC is going to
have a 2.0 version (isn't it?). We can move our number to sync with that
major change.
I don't think we want to scare people in to thinking we have changed
everything enough to call it 2.0.
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:03 PM
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
glen, tom,
thoughts?
-- dims
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:58:55 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
<sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> I don't think this is a good idea .. the changes are incremental
> changes and not radical. I personal prefer to make major version
> changes when there's more than incremental changes.
>
> I do agree its good to be ahead of the Axis/C++ version #s ..
> but they're on a much faster release cycle. Part of it of course
> is because Axis/Java 1.0 was not a 1.0 like Axis/C++ was .. it had
> the benefit of a prior impl (Apache SOAP) .. so we really should've
> started with Axis/Java 3.0. However, since we started with 1.0, this
> seems like the wrong time to jump ship to 2.0.
>
> I'm -0 on this.
>
> Sanjiva.
> p.s.: We're not (and no one is) WSDL 2.0 supportive yet of course.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Loughran" <st...@apache.org>
> To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:39 PM
> Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0
label?
>
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > Glen, Tom, Ias, Steve, others,
> > >
> > > Since we are certifying against SAAJ 1.2 and JAX-RPC 1.1 and since
> > > JAX-RPC 1.1 implies conformance to WS-I BP. This is major stuff going
> > > on :) I also want to be ahead of the Axis C++ version #'s as well :)
> > > :)
> > >
> > > So, shall we up the label to 2.0? and release an updated beta next
week?
> >
> > Seems good to me. There has been a lot of change from 1.1. And given
> > WSDL1.1 went to to 2.0, we can only be compatible :)
> >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
Posted by Jongjin Choi <gu...@hotmail.com>.
+1.
I agree that Axis 2.0 may confuse people.
I think, as tom said,
when JAX-RPC 2.0 implementation is done in Axis, we can qualify for version
2.0 without confusion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:43 AM
To: 'axis-dev@ws.apache.org'
Subject: RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
Sorry for the late reply, long holiday weekend.
I am inclined to stick with Axis 1.2, particularly since JAX-RPC is going to
have a 2.0 version (isn't it?). We can move our number to sync with that
major change.
I don't think we want to scare people in to thinking we have changed
everything enough to call it 2.0.
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:03 PM
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
glen, tom,
thoughts?
-- dims
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:58:55 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
<sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> I don't think this is a good idea .. the changes are incremental
> changes and not radical. I personal prefer to make major version
> changes when there's more than incremental changes.
>
> I do agree its good to be ahead of the Axis/C++ version #s ..
> but they're on a much faster release cycle. Part of it of course is
> because Axis/Java 1.0 was not a 1.0 like Axis/C++ was .. it had the
> benefit of a prior impl (Apache SOAP) .. so we really should've
> started with Axis/Java 3.0. However, since we started with 1.0, this
> seems like the wrong time to jump ship to 2.0.
>
> I'm -0 on this.
>
> Sanjiva.
> p.s.: We're not (and no one is) WSDL 2.0 supportive yet of course.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Loughran" <st...@apache.org>
> To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:39 PM
> Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0
label?
>
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > Glen, Tom, Ias, Steve, others,
> > >
> > > Since we are certifying against SAAJ 1.2 and JAX-RPC 1.1 and since
> > > JAX-RPC 1.1 implies conformance to WS-I BP. This is major stuff
> > > going on :) I also want to be ahead of the Axis C++ version #'s as
> > > well :)
> > > :)
> > >
> > > So, shall we up the label to 2.0? and release an updated beta next
week?
> >
> > Seems good to me. There has been a lot of change from 1.1. And given
> > WSDL1.1 went to to 2.0, we can only be compatible :)
> >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
Posted by Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com>.
Yup, +1 that we shouldn't do "2.0" now.
I think we should get 1.2 out and plan for a 1.3, which should be our last
opportunity to fix bugs and deprecate changing APIs, late this year. Then
2.0 (next year) should be the kind of major change we've been talking about
wrt the parsing/encoding engine, modular extensibility, better hooks into
the WSDL processing system, a complete redesign of the WSDL internals,
etc...
--Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jongjin Choi [mailto:gunsnroz@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:32 PM
> To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a
> Axis 2.0 label?
>
> +1.
>
> I agree that Axis 2.0 may confuse people.
> I think, as tom said,
> when JAX-RPC 2.0 implementation is done in Axis, we can
> qualify for version 2.0 without confusion.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:43 AM
> To: 'axis-dev@ws.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a
> Axis 2.0 label?
>
> Sorry for the late reply, long holiday weekend.
>
> I am inclined to stick with Axis 1.2, particularly since
> JAX-RPC is going to
> have a 2.0 version (isn't it?). We can move our number to
> sync with that
> major change.
>
> I don't think we want to scare people in to thinking we have changed
> everything enough to call it 2.0.
>
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:03 PM
> To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a
> Axis 2.0 label?
>
> glen, tom,
>
> thoughts?
>
> -- dims
>
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:58:55 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
> <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > I don't think this is a good idea .. the changes are incremental
> > changes and not radical. I personal prefer to make major version
> > changes when there's more than incremental changes.
> >
> > I do agree its good to be ahead of the Axis/C++ version #s ..
> > but they're on a much faster release cycle. Part of it of course is
> > because Axis/Java 1.0 was not a 1.0 like Axis/C++ was .. it had the
> > benefit of a prior impl (Apache SOAP) .. so we really should've
> > started with Axis/Java 3.0. However, since we started with
> 1.0, this
> > seems like the wrong time to jump ship to 2.0.
> >
> > I'm -0 on this.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> > p.s.: We're not (and no one is) WSDL 2.0 supportive yet of course.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Loughran" <st...@apache.org>
> > To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0
> label?
> >
> > > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > > Glen, Tom, Ias, Steve, others,
> > > >
> > > > Since we are certifying against SAAJ 1.2 and JAX-RPC
> 1.1 and since
> > > > JAX-RPC 1.1 implies conformance to WS-I BP. This is major stuff
> > > > going on :) I also want to be ahead of the Axis C++
> version #'s as
> > > > well :)
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > So, shall we up the label to 2.0? and release an
> updated beta next
> week?
> > >
> > > Seems good to me. There has been a lot of change from
> 1.1. And given
> > > WSDL1.1 went to to 2.0, we can only be compatible :)
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>
>
RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
Posted by Jongjin Choi <gu...@hotmail.com>.
+1.
I agree that Axis 2.0 may confuse people.
I think, as tom said,
when JAX-RPC 2.0 implementation is done in Axis, we can qualify for version
2.0 without confusion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:43 AM
To: 'axis-dev@ws.apache.org'
Subject: RE: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
Sorry for the late reply, long holiday weekend.
I am inclined to stick with Axis 1.2, particularly since JAX-RPC is going to
have a 2.0 version (isn't it?). We can move our number to sync with that
major change.
I don't think we want to scare people in to thinking we have changed
everything enough to call it 2.0.
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:03 PM
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0 label?
glen, tom,
thoughts?
-- dims
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:58:55 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
<sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> I don't think this is a good idea .. the changes are incremental
> changes and not radical. I personal prefer to make major version
> changes when there's more than incremental changes.
>
> I do agree its good to be ahead of the Axis/C++ version #s ..
> but they're on a much faster release cycle. Part of it of course is
> because Axis/Java 1.0 was not a 1.0 like Axis/C++ was .. it had the
> benefit of a prior impl (Apache SOAP) .. so we really should've
> started with Axis/Java 3.0. However, since we started with 1.0, this
> seems like the wrong time to jump ship to 2.0.
>
> I'm -0 on this.
>
> Sanjiva.
> p.s.: We're not (and no one is) WSDL 2.0 supportive yet of course.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Loughran" <st...@apache.org>
> To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:39 PM
> Subject: Re: SAAJ 1.2, JAX-RPC 1.1, WS-I BP qualifies for a Axis 2.0
label?
>
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > Glen, Tom, Ias, Steve, others,
> > >
> > > Since we are certifying against SAAJ 1.2 and JAX-RPC 1.1 and since
> > > JAX-RPC 1.1 implies conformance to WS-I BP. This is major stuff
> > > going on :) I also want to be ahead of the Axis C++ version #'s as
> > > well :)
> > > :)
> > >
> > > So, shall we up the label to 2.0? and release an updated beta next
week?
> >
> > Seems good to me. There has been a lot of change from 1.1. And given
> > WSDL1.1 went to to 2.0, we can only be compatible :)
> >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/