You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> on 2007/03/01 16:19:29 UTC
Re: JAXB upgrade
I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need it. I
believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other day),
and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user perspective
in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things like WS-A
and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
requires all sorts of hacks right now.
Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any idea if
its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification require 2.0?
I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
- Dan
(I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all applications
> in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
> using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we upgrade
> JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure they
> are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially time
> consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as things
> supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> another thing for us to worry about.
>
> So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
> possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
On Monday 05 March 2007 12:01, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Well that settles that!
>
> Do you know: are they changing the spec? Or are they just pulling their
> implementation?
They are changing it slightly. It has something to do with the "Last Call
Working Draft" of the "Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-addr-metadata-20070202/ having some
changes in it. They didn't want 2.1 out there that's incompatible with
it, or something like that.
I don't think it's API changes, but it may be. Just javadoc, docs, and
possibly spec compliance (optional vs required type changes). Not really
sure at this point.
In anycase, I'm removing it from our builds. Tests are running now.
Dan
> - Dan
>
> On 3/5/07, Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com> wrote:
> > I'll pull the JAX-WS 2.1 stuff now. I just received word from Sun
> > that they are pulling JAX-WS 2.1 anyway. (they are respinning it to
> > address some issues with the WS-A stuff) Thus, it will be removed
> > from the maven repository ASAP and our builds will fail. Give my 1/2
> > hour or so.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Monday 05 March 2007 11:21, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> > > Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> > > from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making
> > > a lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jarek
> > >
> > > On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final
> > > > and the RI impl is already out:
> > > >
> > > > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> > > >
> > > > Everyone else ok with it?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > - Dan
> > > >
> > > > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS
> > > > > 2.0. We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow
> > > > > supporting the 2.1 specs, but as far as we can tell this has not
> > > > > yet happened. Getting information out of sun about this stuff
> > > > > can be difficult, but perhaps if we started now and now and are
> > > > > sufficiently persistent we will eventually find out something
> > > > > useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went
> > > > > back to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > david jencks
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1.
> > > > > > Now, I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jarek
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we
> > > > > >> ultimately need it. I
> > > > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar
> > > > > >> the other day),
> > > > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a
> > > > > >> user perspective
> > > > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for
> > > > > >> things like WS-A
> > > > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution
> > > > > >> types, which requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or
> > > > > >> 2.1? Any idea if
> > > > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does
> > > > > >> certification require 2.0?
> > > > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - Dan
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > Hi again,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired
> > > > > >> > to figure out what sort of implications that might have on
> > > > > >> > Geronimo. First of all, JAXB is one of those libraries that
> > > > > >> > is shared by all
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> applications
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> components
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> upgrade
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to
> > > > > >> > make
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> sure they
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> potentially time
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was
> > > > > >> > TCK testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK
> > > > > >> > expects JAXB 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation.
> > > > > >> > Maybe nothing (as
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> things
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> > > > > >> > That's another thing for us to worry about.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF
> > > > > >> > would
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> it be
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > Jarek
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dan Diephouse
> > > > Envoi Solutions
> > > > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >
> > --
> > J. Daniel Kulp
> > Principal Engineer
> > IONA
> > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> > daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
On Monday 05 March 2007 12:01, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Well that settles that!
>
> Do you know: are they changing the spec? Or are they just pulling their
> implementation?
They are changing it slightly. It has something to do with the "Last Call
Working Draft" of the "Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-addr-metadata-20070202/ having some
changes in it. They didn't want 2.1 out there that's incompatible with
it, or something like that.
I don't think it's API changes, but it may be. Just javadoc, docs, and
possibly spec compliance (optional vs required type changes). Not really
sure at this point.
In anycase, I'm removing it from our builds. Tests are running now.
Dan
> - Dan
>
> On 3/5/07, Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com> wrote:
> > I'll pull the JAX-WS 2.1 stuff now. I just received word from Sun
> > that they are pulling JAX-WS 2.1 anyway. (they are respinning it to
> > address some issues with the WS-A stuff) Thus, it will be removed
> > from the maven repository ASAP and our builds will fail. Give my 1/2
> > hour or so.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Monday 05 March 2007 11:21, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> > > Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> > > from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making
> > > a lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jarek
> > >
> > > On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final
> > > > and the RI impl is already out:
> > > >
> > > > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> > > >
> > > > Everyone else ok with it?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > - Dan
> > > >
> > > > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS
> > > > > 2.0. We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow
> > > > > supporting the 2.1 specs, but as far as we can tell this has not
> > > > > yet happened. Getting information out of sun about this stuff
> > > > > can be difficult, but perhaps if we started now and now and are
> > > > > sufficiently persistent we will eventually find out something
> > > > > useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went
> > > > > back to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > david jencks
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1.
> > > > > > Now, I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jarek
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we
> > > > > >> ultimately need it. I
> > > > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar
> > > > > >> the other day),
> > > > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a
> > > > > >> user perspective
> > > > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for
> > > > > >> things like WS-A
> > > > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution
> > > > > >> types, which requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or
> > > > > >> 2.1? Any idea if
> > > > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does
> > > > > >> certification require 2.0?
> > > > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - Dan
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > Hi again,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired
> > > > > >> > to figure out what sort of implications that might have on
> > > > > >> > Geronimo. First of all, JAXB is one of those libraries that
> > > > > >> > is shared by all
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> applications
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> components
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> upgrade
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to
> > > > > >> > make
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> sure they
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> potentially time
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was
> > > > > >> > TCK testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK
> > > > > >> > expects JAXB 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation.
> > > > > >> > Maybe nothing (as
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> things
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> > > > > >> > That's another thing for us to worry about.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF
> > > > > >> > would
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> it be
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > Jarek
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dan Diephouse
> > > > Envoi Solutions
> > > > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >
> > --
> > J. Daniel Kulp
> > Principal Engineer
> > IONA
> > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> > daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Well that settles that!
Do you know: are they changing the spec? Or are they just pulling their
implementation?
- Dan
On 3/5/07, Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'll pull the JAX-WS 2.1 stuff now. I just received word from Sun that
> they are pulling JAX-WS 2.1 anyway. (they are respinning it to address
> some issues with the WS-A stuff) Thus, it will be removed from the
> maven repository ASAP and our builds will fail. Give my 1/2 hour or so.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Monday 05 March 2007 11:21, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> > Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> > from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
> > lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and
> > > the RI impl is already out:
> > >
> > > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> > >
> > > Everyone else ok with it?
> > > Cheers,
> > > - Dan
> > >
> > > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > > > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the
> > > > 2.1 specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened.
> > > > Getting information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult,
> > > > but perhaps if we started now and now and are sufficiently
> > > > persistent we will eventually find out something useful.
> > > >
> > > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > > > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > david jencks
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1.
> > > > > Now, I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarek
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > > > >> need it. I
> > > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > > > >> other day),
> > > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > > > >> perspective
> > > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > > > >> like WS-A
> > > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> > > > >> which requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1?
> > > > >> Any idea if
> > > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > > > >> require 2.0?
> > > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Dan
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > Hi again,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> > > > >> > figure out what sort of implications that might have on
> > > > >> > Geronimo. First of all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is
> > > > >> > shared by all
> > > > >>
> > > > >> applications
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > > >>
> > > > >> components
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > > > >>
> > > > >> upgrade
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > > > >>
> > > > >> sure they
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > > >>
> > > > >> potentially time
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > > > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> > > > >> > JAXB 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe
> > > > >> > nothing (as
> > > > >>
> > > > >> things
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> > > > >> > That's another thing for us to worry about.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > > > >>
> > > > >> it be
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > Jarek
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan Diephouse
> > > Envoi Solutions
> > > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Well that settles that!
Do you know: are they changing the spec? Or are they just pulling their
implementation?
- Dan
On 3/5/07, Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'll pull the JAX-WS 2.1 stuff now. I just received word from Sun that
> they are pulling JAX-WS 2.1 anyway. (they are respinning it to address
> some issues with the WS-A stuff) Thus, it will be removed from the
> maven repository ASAP and our builds will fail. Give my 1/2 hour or so.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Monday 05 March 2007 11:21, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> > Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> > from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
> > lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and
> > > the RI impl is already out:
> > >
> > > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> > >
> > > Everyone else ok with it?
> > > Cheers,
> > > - Dan
> > >
> > > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > > > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the
> > > > 2.1 specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened.
> > > > Getting information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult,
> > > > but perhaps if we started now and now and are sufficiently
> > > > persistent we will eventually find out something useful.
> > > >
> > > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > > > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > david jencks
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1.
> > > > > Now, I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarek
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > > > >> need it. I
> > > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > > > >> other day),
> > > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > > > >> perspective
> > > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > > > >> like WS-A
> > > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> > > > >> which requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1?
> > > > >> Any idea if
> > > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > > > >> require 2.0?
> > > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Dan
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > Hi again,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> > > > >> > figure out what sort of implications that might have on
> > > > >> > Geronimo. First of all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is
> > > > >> > shared by all
> > > > >>
> > > > >> applications
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > > >>
> > > > >> components
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > > > >>
> > > > >> upgrade
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > > > >>
> > > > >> sure they
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > > >>
> > > > >> potentially time
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > > > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> > > > >> > JAXB 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe
> > > > >> > nothing (as
> > > > >>
> > > > >> things
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> > > > >> > That's another thing for us to worry about.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > > > >>
> > > > >> it be
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > Jarek
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan Diephouse
> > > Envoi Solutions
> > > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
I'll pull the JAX-WS 2.1 stuff now. I just received word from Sun that
they are pulling JAX-WS 2.1 anyway. (they are respinning it to address
some issues with the WS-A stuff) Thus, it will be removed from the
maven repository ASAP and our builds will fail. Give my 1/2 hour or so.
Dan
On Monday 05 March 2007 11:21, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
> lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
> On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and
> > the RI impl is already out:
> >
> > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> >
> > Everyone else ok with it?
> > Cheers,
> > - Dan
> >
> > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the
> > > 2.1 specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened.
> > > Getting information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult,
> > > but perhaps if we started now and now and are sufficiently
> > > persistent we will eventually find out something useful.
> > >
> > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1.
> > > > Now, I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > >
> > > > Jarek
> > > >
> > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > > >> need it. I
> > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > > >> other day),
> > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > > >> perspective
> > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > > >> like WS-A
> > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> > > >> which requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1?
> > > >> Any idea if
> > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > > >> require 2.0?
> > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Dan
> > > >>
> > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Hi again,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> > > >> > figure out what sort of implications that might have on
> > > >> > Geronimo. First of all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is
> > > >> > shared by all
> > > >>
> > > >> applications
> > > >>
> > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > >>
> > > >> components
> > > >>
> > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > > >>
> > > >> upgrade
> > > >>
> > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > > >>
> > > >> sure they
> > > >>
> > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > >>
> > > >> potentially time
> > > >>
> > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> > > >> > JAXB 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe
> > > >> > nothing (as
> > > >>
> > > >> things
> > > >>
> > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> > > >> > That's another thing for us to worry about.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > > >>
> > > >> it be
> > > >>
> > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Jarek
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >
> > --
> > Dan Diephouse
> > Envoi Solutions
> > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
I'll pull the JAX-WS 2.1 stuff now. I just received word from Sun that
they are pulling JAX-WS 2.1 anyway. (they are respinning it to address
some issues with the WS-A stuff) Thus, it will be removed from the
maven repository ASAP and our builds will fail. Give my 1/2 hour or so.
Dan
On Monday 05 March 2007 11:21, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
> lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
> On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and
> > the RI impl is already out:
> >
> > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> >
> > Everyone else ok with it?
> > Cheers,
> > - Dan
> >
> > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the
> > > 2.1 specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened.
> > > Getting information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult,
> > > but perhaps if we started now and now and are sufficiently
> > > persistent we will eventually find out something useful.
> > >
> > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1.
> > > > Now, I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > >
> > > > Jarek
> > > >
> > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > > >> need it. I
> > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > > >> other day),
> > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > > >> perspective
> > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > > >> like WS-A
> > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> > > >> which requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1?
> > > >> Any idea if
> > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > > >> require 2.0?
> > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Dan
> > > >>
> > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Hi again,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> > > >> > figure out what sort of implications that might have on
> > > >> > Geronimo. First of all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is
> > > >> > shared by all
> > > >>
> > > >> applications
> > > >>
> > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > >>
> > > >> components
> > > >>
> > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > > >>
> > > >> upgrade
> > > >>
> > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > > >>
> > > >> sure they
> > > >>
> > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > >>
> > > >> potentially time
> > > >>
> > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> > > >> > JAXB 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe
> > > >> > nothing (as
> > > >>
> > > >> things
> > > >>
> > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> > > >> > That's another thing for us to worry about.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > > >>
> > > >> it be
> > > >>
> > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Jarek
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >
> > --
> > Dan Diephouse
> > Envoi Solutions
> > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Yes, I will try to take care of this today (granted it might not get checked
in until later today though). Cheers,
- Dan
On 3/5/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
> lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
> On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and
> the
> > RI impl is already out:
> >
> > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> >
> > Everyone else ok with it?
> > Cheers,
> > - Dan
> >
> >
> > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> > > specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> > > information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> > > if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> > > eventually find out something useful.
> > >
> > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > > > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > >
> > > > Jarek
> > > >
> > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > > >> need it. I
> > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > > >> other day),
> > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > > >> perspective
> > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > > >> like WS-A
> > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> which
> > > >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> > > >> idea if
> > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > > >> require 2.0?
> > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Dan
> > > >>
> > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi again,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> figure
> > > >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First
> of
> > > >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> > > >> applications
> > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > >> components
> > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > > >> upgrade
> > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > > >> sure they
> > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > >> potentially time
> > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> JAXB
> > > >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> > > >> things
> > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> That's
> > > >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > > >> it be
> > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Jarek
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dan Diephouse
> > Envoi Solutions
> > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Yes, I will try to take care of this today (granted it might not get checked
in until later today though). Cheers,
- Dan
On 3/5/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
> Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
> from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
> lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
> On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and
> the
> > RI impl is already out:
> >
> > https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
> >
> > Everyone else ok with it?
> > Cheers,
> > - Dan
> >
> >
> > On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> > > specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> > > information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> > > if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> > > eventually find out something useful.
> > >
> > > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > > > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > > >
> > > > Jarek
> > > >
> > > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > > >> need it. I
> > > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > > >> other day),
> > > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > > >> perspective
> > > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > > >> like WS-A
> > > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> which
> > > >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> > > >> idea if
> > > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > > >> require 2.0?
> > > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Dan
> > > >>
> > > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi again,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> figure
> > > >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First
> of
> > > >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> > > >> applications
> > > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > > >> components
> > > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > > >> upgrade
> > > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > > >> sure they
> > > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > > >> potentially time
> > > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> JAXB
> > > >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> > > >> things
> > > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> That's
> > > >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > > >> it be
> > > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Jarek
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Dan Diephouse
> > > >> Envoi Solutions
> > > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dan Diephouse
> > Envoi Solutions
> > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
Thanks,
Jarek
On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and the
> RI impl is already out:
>
> https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
>
> Everyone else ok with it?
> Cheers,
> - Dan
>
>
> On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> > specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> > information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> > if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> > eventually find out something useful.
> >
> > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> >
> > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> >
> > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > >
> > > Jarek
> > >
> > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > >> need it. I
> > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > >> other day),
> > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > >> perspective
> > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > >> like WS-A
> > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> > >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > >>
> > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> > >> idea if
> > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > >> require 2.0?
> > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > >>
> > >> - Dan
> > >>
> > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > >>
> > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi again,
> > >> >
> > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> > >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> > >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> > >> applications
> > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > >> components
> > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > >> upgrade
> > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > >> sure they
> > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > >> potentially time
> > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> > >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> > >> things
> > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> > >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > >> it be
> > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Jarek
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dan Diephouse
> > >> Envoi Solutions
> > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Oisin Hurley <oh...@iona.com>.
> I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final
> and the
> RI impl is already out:
>
> https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
>
> Everyone else ok with it?
In Eclipse-land we've got an IP clearance request in on 2.0, we'll
add another
one for 2.1, so we can have enabler plugins for current and future
CXF. What's
the Real Truth on JAX-WS . JAXB cross product? I'd like to be able to
produce
a rolled up integration plugin with both parts.
regards
--oh
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Oisin Hurley <oh...@iona.com>.
> I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final
> and the
> RI impl is already out:
>
> https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
>
> Everyone else ok with it?
In Eclipse-land we've got an IP clearance request in on 2.0, we'll
add another
one for 2.1, so we can have enabler plugins for current and future
CXF. What's
the Real Truth on JAX-WS . JAXB cross product? I'd like to be able to
produce
a rolled up integration plugin with both parts.
regards
--oh
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
This currently says...
Sorry! Temporarily unavailable will be back soon...
:-(
--jason
On Mar 2, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final
> and the RI impl is already out:
>
> https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
>
> Everyone else ok with it?
> Cheers,
> - Dan
>
>
> On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote: At this
> time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> eventually find out something useful.
>
> Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
>
> Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> >> need it. I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> >> other day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> >> like WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo.
> First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> >> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> >> components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> >> upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> >> sure they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> >> potentially time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> >> things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> >> it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Would it be possible for CXF folks to decide this issue soon? In
Geronimo land we are kind of stuck right now (we have CXF disabled
from the build because of the JAX-WS/JAXB issues) we are not making a
lot of progress now in terms of intergration and testing.
Thanks,
Jarek
On 3/2/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and the
> RI impl is already out:
>
> https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
>
> Everyone else ok with it?
> Cheers,
> - Dan
>
>
> On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> > We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> > specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> > information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> > if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> > eventually find out something useful.
> >
> > Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
> >
> > Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> > to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> >
> > > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> > >
> > > Jarek
> > >
> > > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> > >> need it. I
> > >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> > >> other day),
> > >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> > >> perspective
> > >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> > >> like WS-A
> > >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> > >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> > >>
> > >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> > >> idea if
> > >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> > >> require 2.0?
> > >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> > >>
> > >> - Dan
> > >>
> > >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> > >>
> > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi again,
> > >> >
> > >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> > >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> > >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> > >> applications
> > >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> > >> components
> > >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> > >> upgrade
> > >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> > >> sure they
> > >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> > >> potentially time
> > >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> > >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> > >> things
> > >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> > >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> > >> it be
> > >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Jarek
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dan Diephouse
> > >> Envoi Solutions
> > >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
This currently says...
Sorry! Temporarily unavailable will be back soon...
:-(
--jason
On Mar 2, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final
> and the RI impl is already out:
>
> https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
>
> Everyone else ok with it?
> Cheers,
> - Dan
>
>
> On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote: At this
> time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> eventually find out something useful.
>
> Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
>
> Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> >> need it. I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> >> other day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> >> like WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo.
> First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> >> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> >> components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> >> upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> >> sure they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> >> potentially time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> >> things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> >> it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and the
RI impl is already out:
https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
Everyone else ok with it?
Cheers,
- Dan
On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> eventually find out something useful.
>
> Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
>
> Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> >> need it. I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> >> other day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> >> like WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> >> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> >> components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> >> upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> >> sure they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> >> potentially time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> >> things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> >> it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
I'm OK with rolling back for now. However the spec itself is final and the
RI impl is already out:
https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/2.1/
Everyone else ok with it?
Cheers,
- Dan
On 3/2/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
> We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
> specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
> information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
> if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
> eventually find out something useful.
>
> Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
>
> Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
> to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> >> need it. I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> >> other day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
> >> like WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> >> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> >> components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> >> upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> >> sure they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> >> potentially time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> >> things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> >> it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
eventually find out something useful.
Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> I'm not sure how that affects things.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
>> need it. I
>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
>> other day),
>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>> perspective
>> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>> like WS-A
>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>
>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>> idea if
>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>> require 2.0?
>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>
>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>> applications
>> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
>> components
>> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>> upgrade
>> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
>> sure they
>> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
>> potentially time
>> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>> things
>> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>> > another thing for us to worry about.
>> >
>> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
>> it be
>> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jarek
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
eventually find out something useful.
Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> I'm not sure how that affects things.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
>> need it. I
>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
>> other day),
>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>> perspective
>> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>> like WS-A
>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>
>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>> idea if
>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>> require 2.0?
>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>
>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>> applications
>> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
>> components
>> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>> upgrade
>> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
>> sure they
>> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
>> potentially time
>> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>> things
>> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>> > another thing for us to worry about.
>> >
>> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
>> it be
>> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jarek
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Yep...so for this reason I would probably ask that CXF hang on JAXB 2.0
for the time being.
Jeff
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Sun sometimes allows implementations to certify using a newer api then
> was in required by the original JEE specification. My guess is that the
> next version of Glassfish uses these apis, so hopefully if we ask,
> they'll give us new signature files or a patched TCK.
>
> Anyway, to find out someone will have to ask on the Apache open-jcp
> list, and that person will have to commit to hounding that list until we
> get an up or down response. It is a lot of work and can take
> weeks/months to get a response, so I suggest you don't agree to take on
> this task unless you are going to have the time and commitment.
>
> -dain
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> AFAICT...the TCK for JAXB appears to be for 2.0.:
>>
>> https://jaxb.dev.java.net/tck.html
>>
>> and it appears that particular TCK is open to all ;-)
>>
>> On that web site it clearly states:
>>
>> **************************************************
>> Compatibility artifacts are available as follows:
>>
>> * The JAXB 2.0 PFD specification.
>> **************************************************
>>
>> We probably need to kick this up to Sun, but for safety, I would stick
>> with 2.0 until we hear back from them.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
>>>> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
>>>
>>> Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation can
>>> see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in this
>>> case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and no
>>> less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start implementing the
>>> new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods on the
>>> InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
>>>
>>> I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs jaxb
>>> 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the tck to
>>> know for sure.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Dan
>>>>
>>>> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
>>>>> I'm not sure how that affects things.
>>>>
>>>> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need
>>>> it. I
>>>>>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
>>>>>> day),
>>>>>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>>>> like
>>>>>> WS-A
>>>>>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>>>>>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>>>>>> idea if
>>>>>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>>>>>> require 2.0?
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>>>>>>> out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>>>>>>> all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>>>> applications
>>>>>>> in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
>>>>>>> using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>> JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure
>>>> they
>>>>>>> are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially
>>>> time
>>>>>>> consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>>>>>>> testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>>>>>>> 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>>>> things
>>>>>>> supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>>>>>>> another thing for us to worry about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
>>>>>>> possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dan Diephouse
>>>>>> Envoi Solutions
>>>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Dan Diephouse
>>>> Envoi Solutions
>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Yep...so for this reason I would probably ask that CXF hang on JAXB 2.0
for the time being.
Jeff
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Sun sometimes allows implementations to certify using a newer api then
> was in required by the original JEE specification. My guess is that the
> next version of Glassfish uses these apis, so hopefully if we ask,
> they'll give us new signature files or a patched TCK.
>
> Anyway, to find out someone will have to ask on the Apache open-jcp
> list, and that person will have to commit to hounding that list until we
> get an up or down response. It is a lot of work and can take
> weeks/months to get a response, so I suggest you don't agree to take on
> this task unless you are going to have the time and commitment.
>
> -dain
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> AFAICT...the TCK for JAXB appears to be for 2.0.:
>>
>> https://jaxb.dev.java.net/tck.html
>>
>> and it appears that particular TCK is open to all ;-)
>>
>> On that web site it clearly states:
>>
>> **************************************************
>> Compatibility artifacts are available as follows:
>>
>> * The JAXB 2.0 PFD specification.
>> **************************************************
>>
>> We probably need to kick this up to Sun, but for safety, I would stick
>> with 2.0 until we hear back from them.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
>>>> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
>>>
>>> Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation can
>>> see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in this
>>> case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and no
>>> less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start implementing the
>>> new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods on the
>>> InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
>>>
>>> I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs jaxb
>>> 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the tck to
>>> know for sure.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Dan
>>>>
>>>> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
>>>>> I'm not sure how that affects things.
>>>>
>>>> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need
>>>> it. I
>>>>>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
>>>>>> day),
>>>>>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>>>> like
>>>>>> WS-A
>>>>>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>>>>>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>>>>>> idea if
>>>>>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>>>>>> require 2.0?
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>>>>>>> out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>>>>>>> all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>>>> applications
>>>>>>> in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
>>>>>>> using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>> JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure
>>>> they
>>>>>>> are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially
>>>> time
>>>>>>> consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>>>>>>> testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>>>>>>> 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>>>> things
>>>>>>> supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>>>>>>> another thing for us to worry about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
>>>>>>> possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dan Diephouse
>>>>>> Envoi Solutions
>>>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Dan Diephouse
>>>> Envoi Solutions
>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Sun sometimes allows implementations to certify using a newer api
then was in required by the original JEE specification. My guess is
that the next version of Glassfish uses these apis, so hopefully if
we ask, they'll give us new signature files or a patched TCK.
Anyway, to find out someone will have to ask on the Apache open-jcp
list, and that person will have to commit to hounding that list until
we get an up or down response. It is a lot of work and can take
weeks/months to get a response, so I suggest you don't agree to take
on this task unless you are going to have the time and commitment.
-dain
On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> AFAICT...the TCK for JAXB appears to be for 2.0.:
>
> https://jaxb.dev.java.net/tck.html
>
> and it appears that particular TCK is open to all ;-)
>
> On that web site it clearly states:
>
> **************************************************
> Compatibility artifacts are available as follows:
>
> * The JAXB 2.0 PFD specification.
> **************************************************
>
> We probably need to kick this up to Sun, but for safety, I would stick
> with 2.0 until we hear back from them.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>
>>> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
>>> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
>>
>> Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real
>> limitation can
>> see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in this
>> case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and no
>> less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start
>> implementing the
>> new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods on the
>> InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
>>
>> I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs
>> jaxb
>> 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the tck to
>> know for sure.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Dan
>>>
>>> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
>>>> I'm not sure how that affects things.
>>>
>>> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a
>>> problem.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jarek
>>>>
>>>> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
>>>>> need
>>> it. I
>>>>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
>>>>> other
>>>>> day),
>>>>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>>>>> perspective
>>>>> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>>> like
>>>>> WS-A
>>>>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
>>>>> which
>>>>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>>>>> idea if
>>>>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>>>>> require 2.0?
>>>>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
>>>>>> figure
>>>>>> out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo.
>>>>>> First of
>>>>>> all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>>> applications
>>>>>> in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
>>>>>> components
>>>>>> using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>>> upgrade
>>>>>> JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure
>>> they
>>>>>> are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially
>>> time
>>>>>> consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>>>>>> testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
>>>>>> JAXB
>>>>>> 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>>> things
>>>>>> supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
>>>>>> That's
>>>>>> another thing for us to worry about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
>>>>>> it be
>>>>>> possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dan Diephouse
>>>>> Envoi Solutions
>>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Dan Diephouse
>>> Envoi Solutions
>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
AFAICT...the TCK for JAXB appears to be for 2.0.:
https://jaxb.dev.java.net/tck.html
and it appears that particular TCK is open to all ;-)
On that web site it clearly states:
**************************************************
Compatibility artifacts are available as follows:
* The JAXB 2.0 PFD specification.
**************************************************
We probably need to kick this up to Sun, but for safety, I would stick
with 2.0 until we hear back from them.
Thoughts?
Jeff
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
>> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
>
> Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation can
> see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in this
> case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and no
> less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start implementing the
> new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods on the
> InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
>
> I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs jaxb
> 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the tck to
> know for sure.
>
> -David
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Dan
>>
>> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
>> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
>>
>> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>>
>> >
>> > Jarek
>> >
>> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need
>> it. I
>> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
>> >> day),
>> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>> >> perspective
>> >> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>> like
>> >> WS-A
>> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>> >>
>> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>> >> idea if
>> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>> >> require 2.0?
>> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>> >>
>> >> - Dan
>> >>
>> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>> >>
>> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi again,
>> >> >
>> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>> applications
>> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
>> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>> upgrade
>> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure
>> they
>> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially
>> time
>> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>> things
>> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
>> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Jarek
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dan Diephouse
>> >> Envoi Solutions
>> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
AFAICT...the TCK for JAXB appears to be for 2.0.:
https://jaxb.dev.java.net/tck.html
and it appears that particular TCK is open to all ;-)
On that web site it clearly states:
**************************************************
Compatibility artifacts are available as follows:
* The JAXB 2.0 PFD specification.
**************************************************
We probably need to kick this up to Sun, but for safety, I would stick
with 2.0 until we hear back from them.
Thoughts?
Jeff
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
>> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
>
> Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation can
> see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in this
> case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and no
> less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start implementing the
> new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods on the
> InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
>
> I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs jaxb
> 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the tck to
> know for sure.
>
> -David
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Dan
>>
>> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
>> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
>>
>> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>>
>> >
>> > Jarek
>> >
>> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need
>> it. I
>> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
>> >> day),
>> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>> >> perspective
>> >> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>> like
>> >> WS-A
>> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>> >>
>> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>> >> idea if
>> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>> >> require 2.0?
>> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>> >>
>> >> - Dan
>> >>
>> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>> >>
>> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi again,
>> >> >
>> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>> applications
>> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
>> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>> upgrade
>> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure
>> they
>> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially
>> time
>> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>> things
>> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
>> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Jarek
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dan Diephouse
>> >> Envoi Solutions
>> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation
can see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in
this case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and
no less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start
implementing the new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods
on the InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs
jaxb 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the
tck to know for sure.
-David
>
> Thanks,
> - Dan
>
> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
>
> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a
> problem.
>
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> need it. I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> other
> >> day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for
> things like
> >> WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo.
> First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> sure they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> potentially time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing
> (as things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there
> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation
can see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in
this case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and
no less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start
implementing the new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods
on the InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification.
I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs
jaxb 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the
tck to know for sure.
-David
>
> Thanks,
> - Dan
>
> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
>
> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a
> problem.
>
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
> need it. I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
> other
> >> day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for
> things like
> >> WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types,
> which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to
> figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo.
> First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
> components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
> upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
> sure they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
> potentially time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects
> JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing
> (as things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up.
> That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
> it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there any way
we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
Thanks,
- Dan
On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
>
> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need it.
> I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
> >> day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things like
> >> WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure
> they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially
> time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there any way
we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though?
Thanks,
- Dan
On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Jarek Gawor wrote:
> > Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> > I'm not sure how that affects things.
>
> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> >> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need it.
> I
> >> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
> >> day),
> >> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
> >> perspective
> >> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things like
> >> WS-A
> >> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> >> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
> >>
> >> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
> >> idea if
> >> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
> >> require 2.0?
> >> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
> >>
> >> - Dan
> >>
> >> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
> >>
> >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi again,
> >> >
> >> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> >> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> >> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
> applications
> >> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
> >> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we upgrade
> >> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure
> they
> >> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially
> time
> >> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> >> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> >> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
> things
> >> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> >> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >> >
> >> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
> >> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jarek
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Diephouse
> >> Envoi Solutions
> >> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
> >>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> I'm not sure how that affects things.
If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need it. I
>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
>> day),
>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>> perspective
>> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things like
>> WS-A
>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>
>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>> idea if
>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>> require 2.0?
>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>
>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all applications
>> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
>> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we upgrade
>> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure they
>> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially time
>> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as things
>> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>> > another thing for us to worry about.
>> >
>> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
>> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jarek
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> I'm not sure how that affects things.
If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need it. I
>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other
>> day),
>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>> perspective
>> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things like
>> WS-A
>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>
>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>> idea if
>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>> require 2.0?
>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>
>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all applications
>> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
>> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we upgrade
>> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure they
>> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially time
>> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as things
>> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>> > another thing for us to worry about.
>> >
>> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
>> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jarek
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
At this time Geronimo can only certify with JAXB 2.0 and JAXWS 2.0.
We're hoping that sun will update the tck to allow supporting the 2.1
specs, but as far as we can tell this has not yet happened. Getting
information out of sun about this stuff can be difficult, but perhaps
if we started now and now and are sufficiently persistent we will
eventually find out something useful.
Are the 2.1 spec versions officially released?
Meanwhile we'd certainly appreciate it at Geronimo if you went back
to the 2.0 spec versions for now.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
> I'm not sure how that affects things.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately
>> need it. I
>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the
>> other day),
>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user
>> perspective
>> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things
>> like WS-A
>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
>> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>>
>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any
>> idea if
>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification
>> require 2.0?
>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>>
>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
>> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
>> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all
>> applications
>> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different
>> components
>> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we
>> upgrade
>> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make
>> sure they
>> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but
>> potentially time
>> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
>> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
>> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as
>> things
>> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
>> > another thing for us to worry about.
>> >
>> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would
>> it be
>> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jarek
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
I'm not sure how that affects things.
Jarek
On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need it. I
> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other day),
> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user perspective
> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things like WS-A
> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>
> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any idea if
> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification require 2.0?
> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>
> - Dan
>
> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>
> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all applications
> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we upgrade
> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure they
> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially time
> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as things
> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >
> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
Re: JAXB upgrade
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now,
I'm not sure how that affects things.
Jarek
On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need it. I
> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other day),
> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user perspective
> in 2.1. For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things like WS-A
> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which
> requires all sorts of hacks right now.
>
> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any idea if
> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification require 2.0?
> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either.
>
> - Dan
>
> (I CC'd dev@geronimo in, hope thats ok)
>
> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> > CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure
> > out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of
> > all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all applications
> > in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components
> > using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we upgrade
> > JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure they
> > are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially time
> > consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK
> > testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB
> > 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as things
> > supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's
> > another thing for us to worry about.
> >
> > So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be
> > possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>