Apache CXF

[Alex O'Ree <sp...@gmail.com>]

Is there any reason we're using a very old version of CXF with Juddi?

The latest is 2.7.3, yet I see we're using 2.3.6 in most of the POMs.

Re: Apache CXF

[Alex O'Ree <sp...@gmail.com>]

This is for an ant based netbeans project that I'm trying to build
just as a sanity test for subscriptions. Long story short, I was
having issues firing up my implementation class of the subscription
callback api. After adding in the correct jar files from the latest
version, it worked. Anyhow, I was just asking if there was a reason.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Kurt T Stam <ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure - but you can simply reference the old version in the pom right? Or is
> this for the console (where I still have to convert you over to maven?) --K
>
>
> On 4/22/13 11:33 AM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
>>
>> For a sample async subscription app, I needed the jetty-cxf jars and
>> didn't see them anywhere with the resultant build. It's probably worth
>> updating, just for bug and security fixes
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Kurt T Stam <ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/21/13 8:21 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there any reason we're using a very old version of CXF with Juddi?
>>>>
>>>> The latest is 2.7.3, yet I see we're using 2.3.6 in most of the POMs.
>>>
>>> No reason other then that was the latest version when we did the
>>> integration
>>> and we've had no issues since - so no need to upgrade.
>>>
>>> We can try upgrading our dependencies for 3.2, or do you have a more
>>> pressing need for a newer version?
>>>
>>> --Kurt
>
>

Re: Apache CXF

[Kurt T Stam <ku...@gmail.com>]

Sure - but you can simply reference the old version in the pom right? Or 
is this for the console (where I still have to convert you over to 
maven?) --K

On 4/22/13 11:33 AM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
> For a sample async subscription app, I needed the jetty-cxf jars and
> didn't see them anywhere with the resultant build. It's probably worth
> updating, just for bug and security fixes
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Kurt T Stam <ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/21/13 8:21 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
>>> Is there any reason we're using a very old version of CXF with Juddi?
>>>
>>> The latest is 2.7.3, yet I see we're using 2.3.6 in most of the POMs.
>> No reason other then that was the latest version when we did the integration
>> and we've had no issues since - so no need to upgrade.
>>
>> We can try upgrading our dependencies for 3.2, or do you have a more
>> pressing need for a newer version?
>>
>> --Kurt

Re: Apache CXF

[Alex O'Ree <sp...@gmail.com>]

For a sample async subscription app, I needed the jetty-cxf jars and
didn't see them anywhere with the resultant build. It's probably worth
updating, just for bug and security fixes

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Kurt T Stam <ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/13 8:21 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
>>
>> Is there any reason we're using a very old version of CXF with Juddi?
>>
>> The latest is 2.7.3, yet I see we're using 2.3.6 in most of the POMs.
>
> No reason other then that was the latest version when we did the integration
> and we've had no issues since - so no need to upgrade.
>
> We can try upgrading our dependencies for 3.2, or do you have a more
> pressing need for a newer version?
>
> --Kurt

Re: Apache CXF

[Kurt T Stam <ku...@gmail.com>]

On 4/21/13 8:21 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
> Is there any reason we're using a very old version of CXF with Juddi?
>
> The latest is 2.7.3, yet I see we're using 2.3.6 in most of the POMs.
No reason other then that was the latest version when we did the 
integration and we've had no issues since - so no need to upgrade.

We can try upgrading our dependencies for 3.2, or do you have a more 
pressing need for a newer version?

--Kurt