On Saturday 17 July 2010 11:11:03 am Craig Tataryn wrote: > I think +1 for Spring 3, if a company is going to make the leap to CXF 2.3, > they are probably willing to make the jump to Spring 3.0. > > Would there actually be any @since 3.0 features you'd use from Spring? Or > would it be possible they could still operate with 2.5.6 by doing maven > excludes on the 3.0 transient deps?
Right now, we default to Spring 2.5.6, but we have a profile for testing with 3.0. We most likely would just reverse that. Thus, at THIS point, you could easily exclude 3 and use 2.5.6. We could probably setup a build in Hudson to use the spring 2 profile to make sure it would work. > No comment on Jetty, I only use Jett for testing purposes and not for > actually deploying too so I think even if there was something with Jetty 7 > which was screwing me up I could still continue BAU with say Tomcat. That would be the goal. The one "tricky" thing is that I might need to update the servlet-api to 3.0 for Jetty, but I need to test to make sure that won't break things when running in a 2.5 container. I'll comment more about this in Benson's thread about jetty 7 in a bit. Dan > > Craig. > > On 2010-07-17, at 6:23 AM, Cyrille Le Clerc wrote: > > +1 for upgrading to Spring 3 and Jetty 7. > > > > Cyrille > > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since we are getting close to having 2.3 ready to release, I'm kind of > >> looking at the various deps to see if there are updates we should grab > >> or not. Things like woodstox and abdera and such are pretty much > >> no-brainers. > >> > >> The two main contention points are: > >> 1) Jetty from 6 to 7- Benson has started investigating this. This > >> DOES involve some code changes as the Jetty packages and stuff have > >> changed. Thus, the http-jetty transport would be incompatible with > >> Jetty 6. However, it would give us some potential new features such > >> as support for continuations on HTTPs. (I think) > >> > >> 2) Spring - should we use 3.0.0 instead of 2.5.6? I think the answer > >> for this is "go ahead". We've already have profiles to test this and > >> the same code seems to work OK with 2.5.6 and 3.0.0. Just want to > >> double check with folks though. > >> > >> I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on those. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Daniel Kulp > >> [email protected] > >> http://dankulp.com/blog -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog
