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 2013/03/25 19:19:23 UTC
Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing with it.
Any thoughts?
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Alessio Soldano <as...@redhat.com>.
I'm also for holding the 2.8 release under this circumstances. IMHO
there're times when it's not possible to go on with time-boxed "final"
releases and a stream of Alpha/Beta/milestone releases before the major
one is the proper approach.
Btw, I'd really like the move to WSS4J 2.0 to be in a major release (3.0)
Cheers
Alessio
On 03/25/2013 07:19 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>
> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
>
> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing with it.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan's quote: According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really
> cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would
> not).
>
> I'm confused -- Apache FOP, Maven and Tomcat can release whenever they want,
> even though none of them even remotely pass the JAX-RS TCK either. Can you
> spell out precisely why CXF has that restriction? Apache makes maybe 100
> software products, which of them are allowed to be released even though they
> horribly fail the JAX-RS TCK and which ones aren't?
It has to do with the definitions of "product" (defined in the agreement) and what JCP specifications that "product" implements. (aka: which API's in javax.* the product implements) In our case, "CXF" is the product and we implement javax.xml.ws (JAX-WS) and javax.xml.rs (JAX-RS) and thus are bound to the agreement for those TCK's. Tomcat implements javax.servlet (and the jsp and and a couple others) and is bound to the TCK agreement as well for those specs. Maven doesn't implement any of the javax.* things and thus, as a "product," is not bound.
> Oracle is a competitor, it would be strange for us to sign up for something
> that limits our ability to make releases (which is what a competitor would
> want). Further, there is so much more to CXF than just adherence to any one
> particular TCK, it would seem to our heavy detriment if we could no longer
> make releases to make that additional functionality available to the
> community (allowing them to work on it, adopt it, and report bugs to us)
> just because of incomplete TCK compliance in one specification or the other.
Yep. That's one of the things that bugs me about the agreement. There's a bunch of other things I don't like as well. For example, lets say we DIDN'T want to do JAX-RS 2.0. That's not allowed either. Once 2.0 is final, we have to move to it for future major releases (bug fix releases can stay on 1.1) of CXF (there is a time period in there that we are negotiating).
> This also seems to give Oracle an advantage of sorts--Oracle splits its
> services offerings into Metro and Jersey, so a failure in one would mean the
> other still can get released. With CXF, which supports 2 TCK's, if either
> fail then the entire product line can't be released.
Yep. One possible solution would be to split the "CXF" product into two separate products (or 3). One devoted to SOAP/WS and the other to REST and name them differently and such. Thus, one could continue forward. However, we then would need to manage multiple releases and version numbers and such which has it's own downsides.
The other alternative is to "release" milestones that aren't really releases. That's exactly what Oracle does. That's why we have "Jersey 2.0-m12" and such. The 2.0 TCK isn't final so it cannot actually implement the spec and thus cannot be a full release per the TCK agreement, but doing a "milestone" or "beta" or "preview" release is OK.
In all, much of the agreement sucks. But Apache has already agreed to most of it years ago. :-(
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Dan's quote: According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really
cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would
not).
I'm confused -- Apache FOP, Maven and Tomcat can release whenever they want,
even though none of them even remotely pass the JAX-RS TCK either. Can you
spell out precisely why CXF has that restriction? Apache makes maybe 100
software products, which of them are allowed to be released even though they
horribly fail the JAX-RS TCK and which ones aren't?
Oracle is a competitor, it would be strange for us to sign up for something
that limits our ability to make releases (which is what a competitor would
want). Further, there is so much more to CXF than just adherence to any one
particular TCK, it would seem to our heavy detriment if we could no longer
make releases to make that additional functionality available to the
community (allowing them to work on it, adopt it, and report bugs to us)
just because of incomplete TCK compliance in one specification or the other.
This also seems to give Oracle an advantage of sorts--Oracle splits its
services offerings into Metro and Jersey, so a failure in one would mean the
other still can get released. With CXF, which supports 2 TCK's, if either
fail then the entire product line can't be released.
Always smelling a rat,
Glen
--
View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Thoughts-about-a-2-8-release-or-not-tp5725179p5725412.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
I'm also +1 with this. I would like to merge the WSS4J 2.0 branch to trunk
and switch trunk to be 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.
Colm.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> +1 for skipping 2.8 now and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
> －－－－－－－－－－－－－
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
> Twitter: freemanfang
> Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
> http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
> weibo: @Freeman小屋
>
> On 2013-3-26, at 上午2:19, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> >
> > We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release
> (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this
> time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big
> one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level.
> However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back
> ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on
> the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and
> has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
> >
> > According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot
> "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not).
> Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can
> release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full
> release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle
> is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
> >
> > So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd
> either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone
> jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either
> happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a
> ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this
> April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly
> make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some
> stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently
> force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2
> changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely
> start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people
> looking at it and testing with it.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >
>
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
+1 for skipping 2.8 now and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
Twitter: freemanfang
Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
weibo: @Freeman小屋
On 2013-3-26, at 上午2:19, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>
> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
>
> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing with it.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
RE: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Andrei Shakirin <as...@talend.com>.
Hi,
The issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5001 contains initial draft of XKMS service donated by Talend.
I tried to describe the use case, architecture and design of XKMS Service in CXF wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CXF20DOC/XML+Key+Management+Service+%28XKMS%29
and in the blog: http://ashakirin.blogspot.de/2013/04/cxf-security-getting-certificates-from.html.
The initial draft of XKMS service implementation supports X509 public keys, simple File and LDAP storages and provides Web and OSGi deployment.
Suggested target CXF release version for XKMS service is 3.0.
Any feedback for this code is welcome. The next tasks will be support revocation lists, complete validate operation for trusted chains, extend system tests, support other types of keys and keys storages.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider111@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Schneider
> Sent: Montag, 15. April 2013 15:24
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
>
> I am also +1 for adding xkms for 3.0.
>
> Not sure it makes sense to add it for a bugfix release like 2.7.x. If
> 3.0 is delayed we could always cut a 2.8 and backport it there.
>
> Christian
>
> On 15.04.2013 14:52, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> > +1, it would be another excellent addition to the security
> > +capabilities of
> > CXF. Is there any reason to only put it in CXF 3.0, or should we
> > consider putting it in CXF 2.7.x as well?
> >
> > Colm.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> http://www.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
I am also +1 for adding xkms for 3.0.
Not sure it makes sense to add it for a bugfix release like 2.7.x. If
3.0 is delayed we could always cut a 2.8 and backport it there.
Christian
On 15.04.2013 14:52, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> +1, it would be another excellent addition to the security capabilities of
> CXF. Is there any reason to only put it in CXF 3.0, or should we consider
> putting it in CXF 2.7.x as well?
>
> Colm.
>
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
+1, it would be another excellent addition to the security capabilities of
CXF. Is there any reason to only put it in CXF 3.0, or should we consider
putting it in CXF 2.7.x as well?
Colm.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andrei Shakirin <as...@talend.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One idea for 3.0 in security area is supporting of XKMS 2.0 standard (was
> already announced in dev list in the past).
> XKMS will be one more service (like STS) providing standardized access to
> central key infrastructure (PKI) including lookup, validation,
> registration, reissuing, revocation of different types of keys.
> XKMS will help users to manage their certificates centrally instead
> storing them in local keystores, that IMO very useful in middle/large
> service landscapes.
> Additionally XKMS provides functionality to revoke keys as soon as they
> become compromised.
> It can be used for SOAP as well as with Rest services.
> I tried to explain the use case of XKMS in the blog:
> http://ashakirin.blogspot.de/2013/04/cxf-security-getting-certificates-from.html
> .
>
> From my perspective it could be useful extension of current CXF security.
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> Andrei.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 11. April 2013 17:17
> > To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
> >
> >
> > I never really did follow up on this.
> >
> > Looking at the responses, I think we're in something close to an
> agreement
> > that a 2.8 cannot be done right now (or it doesn't make sense to do so)
> and
> > moving toward 3.0 make sense.
> >
> > Thus, I'd like to go ahead an make trunk to be targeting 3.0. The main
> chunks
> > of work right now for it involve the JAX-RS 2.0 work and the WSS4J 2.0
> work.
> > The WSS4J stuff is on a branch right now, but I'd like to see a little
> more
> > stability there before merging to trunk. Maybe a couple weeks away.
> >
> > Once we start targeting a 3.0, I'd definitely like to open it up for
> other ideas.
> > My immediate plan is to pull the WSDL4J requirements out of the
> transports
> > somehow to allow a pure jaxrs app to not need any WSDL things. I'm
> > thinking about also pulling the wsdlmanager, ws-addressing stuff, various
> > soap specific things, etc… out of api/core to reduce the size of those
> for JAX-
> > RS apps. Not quite sure what that would look like yet, but it certainly
> would
> > make sense to do for a 3.0 version.
> >
> > I'd definitely recommend folks to update:
> > http://cxf.apache.org/docs/30-migration-guide.html
> > and
> > http://cxf.apache.org/roadmap.html
> > (both of which are horribly outdated)
> >
> > Please add any ideas or thought or other things that have bugged you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release
> (2.8).
> > However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time.
> > Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one),
> is
> > updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's
> not
> > complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x.
> The
> > other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but
> > that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards
> compat
> > issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
> > >
> > > According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot
> > "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not).
> > Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can
> release
> > things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full
> release. Since
> > we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying
> > attention to us pretty closely right now.
> > >
> > > So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks,
> we'd
> > either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR
> everyone jump
> > in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either
> happening.
> > Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of
> work. Thus,
> > my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate
> on
> > bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0
> release
> > instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like
> > change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users),
> etc…
> > We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we
> go this
> > route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in
> June or so
> > to get people looking at it and testing with it.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Kulp
> > > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
> > > http://coders.talend.com
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
> > http://coders.talend.com
>
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
RE: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Andrei Shakirin <as...@talend.com>.
Hi,
One idea for 3.0 in security area is supporting of XKMS 2.0 standard (was already announced in dev list in the past).
XKMS will be one more service (like STS) providing standardized access to central key infrastructure (PKI) including lookup, validation, registration, reissuing, revocation of different types of keys.
XKMS will help users to manage their certificates centrally instead storing them in local keystores, that IMO very useful in middle/large service landscapes.
Additionally XKMS provides functionality to revoke keys as soon as they become compromised.
It can be used for SOAP as well as with Rest services.
I tried to explain the use case of XKMS in the blog: http://ashakirin.blogspot.de/2013/04/cxf-security-getting-certificates-from.html.
>From my perspective it could be useful extension of current CXF security.
WDYT?
Regards,
Andrei.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 11. April 2013 17:17
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
>
>
> I never really did follow up on this.
>
> Looking at the responses, I think we're in something close to an agreement
> that a 2.8 cannot be done right now (or it doesn't make sense to do so) and
> moving toward 3.0 make sense.
>
> Thus, I'd like to go ahead an make trunk to be targeting 3.0. The main chunks
> of work right now for it involve the JAX-RS 2.0 work and the WSS4J 2.0 work.
> The WSS4J stuff is on a branch right now, but I'd like to see a little more
> stability there before merging to trunk. Maybe a couple weeks away.
>
> Once we start targeting a 3.0, I'd definitely like to open it up for other ideas.
> My immediate plan is to pull the WSDL4J requirements out of the transports
> somehow to allow a pure jaxrs app to not need any WSDL things. I'm
> thinking about also pulling the wsdlmanager, ws-addressing stuff, various
> soap specific things, etc… out of api/core to reduce the size of those for JAX-
> RS apps. Not quite sure what that would look like yet, but it certainly would
> make sense to do for a 3.0 version.
>
> I'd definitely recommend folks to update:
> http://cxf.apache.org/docs/30-migration-guide.html
> and
> http://cxf.apache.org/roadmap.html
> (both of which are horribly outdated)
>
> Please add any ideas or thought or other things that have bugged you.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8).
> However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time.
> Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is
> updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not
> complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The
> other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but
> that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat
> issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
> >
> > According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot
> "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not).
> Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release
> things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since
> we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying
> attention to us pretty closely right now.
> >
> > So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd
> either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump
> in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening.
> Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus,
> my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on
> bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release
> instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like
> change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc…
> We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this
> route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so
> to get people looking at it and testing with it.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
> > http://coders.talend.com
> >
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
> http://coders.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
I never really did follow up on this.
Looking at the responses, I think we're in something close to an agreement that a 2.8 cannot be done right now (or it doesn't make sense to do so) and moving toward 3.0 make sense.
Thus, I'd like to go ahead an make trunk to be targeting 3.0. The main chunks of work right now for it involve the JAX-RS 2.0 work and the WSS4J 2.0 work. The WSS4J stuff is on a branch right now, but I'd like to see a little more stability there before merging to trunk. Maybe a couple weeks away.
Once we start targeting a 3.0, I'd definitely like to open it up for other ideas. My immediate plan is to pull the WSDL4J requirements out of the transports somehow to allow a pure jaxrs app to not need any WSDL things. I'm thinking about also pulling the wsdlmanager, ws-addressing stuff, various soap specific things, etc… out of api/core to reduce the size of those for JAX-RS apps. Not quite sure what that would look like yet, but it certainly would make sense to do for a 3.0 version.
I'd definitely recommend folks to update:
http://cxf.apache.org/docs/30-migration-guide.html
and
http://cxf.apache.org/roadmap.html
(both of which are horribly outdated)
Please add any ideas or thought or other things that have bugged you.
Dan
On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>
> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
>
> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing with it.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andrei
On 27/03/13 18:24, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
> +1 for skipping 2.8 and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
>
> @Sergei: let us to discuss how I could help with 2.0 TCK.
>
I'm trying to get the server part close enough to be tested against TCK.
There are 3 issues which I'm aware at the moment that need to be completed:
1. support for server-side media type quality parameters (;qs), this is
needed
2. support fro injection of Configuration context - should be
straightforward enough
3. bean validation support - the latter is important but has just been
confirmed to be an optional feature - that said I think we can probably
get it done for RS but also for WS
I think only 1 is required at this stage to start working with TCK, plus
minor bits and pieces to be fixed to get (server-part) TCK passed :-).
The TCK we have is not final but should be close enough to the final
one. The client implementations tests will be done later in the year
I'll get back to you once I do an initial run later on
Thanks Sergey
> Regards,
> Andrei.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
>> Sent: Montag, 25. März 2013 19:19
>> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
>> Subject: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
>>
>>
>> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8).
>> However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time.
>> Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is
>> updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not
>> complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The
>> other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but
>> that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat
>> issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>>
>> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot
>> "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not).
>> Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release
>> things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since
>> we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying
>> attention to us pretty closely right now.
>>
>> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either
>> need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full
>> force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing
>> out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my
>> suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger
>> things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead
>> of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the
>> couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can
>> incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route,
>> we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get
>> people looking at it and testing with it.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
>> http://coders.talend.com
>
RE: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Andrei Shakirin <as...@talend.com>.
+1 for skipping 2.8 and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
@Sergei: let us to discuss how I could help with 2.0 TCK.
Regards,
Andrei.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
> Sent: Montag, 25. März 2013 19:19
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
>
>
> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8).
> However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time.
> Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is
> updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not
> complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The
> other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but
> that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat
> issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>
> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot
> "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not).
> Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release
> things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since
> we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying
> attention to us pretty closely right now.
>
> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either
> need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full
> force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing
> out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my
> suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger
> things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead
> of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the
> couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can
> incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route,
> we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get
> people looking at it and testing with it.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
> http://coders.talend.com
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Jeff Genender<jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Or… don't claim its a certified release…
That may work too. One problem is that JAX-RS 2.0 is nearly finalized
but not yet and I'm not sure when Apache will get the final TCK after that.
As far as JAX-RS 2.0 is concerned, CXF will not have a 'bullet-proof'
implementation in a few weeks time, so I'm also fine with not releasing
2.8.0 in April, but I like Dan's idea to consider doing a beta release
or few of them during the summer time; I think those users who work with
JAX-RS should have an option to play with the final API as soon as
realistically possible, before they start considering trying the
friendly implementations from Oracle or JBoss :-)
Thanks, Sergey
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Daniel Kulp<dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>>>
>>> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
>>>
>>> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing with it.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>>
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Jason Pell <jp...@apache.org>.
Hi,
It makes sense that a 2.8 would bring significant and complete
implementation of new features with possibly some broken api
compatibility (although less than what we could do for a 3.0).
I think delaying until later in the year and instead focus on ensuring
that the 2.7.X, 2.6.x and 2.5.x are the best they can be is an
excellent idea. Nothing worse than a big release just for the sake of
it.
I think passing the TCK for the JAX-XX standards is really important
because it makes CXF more of a viable alternative to the reference
implementation. Also I would think we can't really say we implement
JAX-WS and JAX-RS unless we actually implement the standard 100% and
pass the TCK.
Just my 2c
Cheers
Jason
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Or… don't claim its a certified release…
>
> Jeff
>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>>
>> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
>>
>> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing with it.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Or… don't claim its a certified release…
Jeff
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
>
> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying attention to us pretty closely right now.
>
> So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing with it.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>