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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] in, hope thats ok) > > > >> > > > >> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
