On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
From my standpoint, it would be greatly preferred if you could
find a way
to leave spring for CXF. There is definitely a lot of
functionality
that would be lost if spring is not available. In particular, if
a user
want to configure various things like message logging or
WS-Addressing/WS-RM, https SSL keys, keep-alives and chunking,
etc...,
without the spring config, it becomes quite a bit harder. For very
basic usage, spring is optional. But once you want some
customizations, you really need it.
OK. First I've heard of loss of functionality... Is there loss of
functionality? Or things become harder without Spring? If things
become
harder, an important question is who pays the price? The embedder
(i.e.
us)? Or the user?
I have to agree with Dan on this. This is clearly our problem. It's
Geronimo's classloaders that are causing the issue. We are taking
away
functionality at the expense of our inability to handle Spring.
K. Can you explain to me what functionality is being taken away? Dan
said function would be lost, but then listed functionality and said
that configuring them "becomes quite a bit harder". Nor do I know how
this increased complexity would be who bears the burden for things
becoming quite a bit harder.
I want the client application to be in control of the Spring version.
I don't want the Geronimo server environment to dictate the version
of Spring used by the client application. At present, we are
dictating the version of Spring. I think this needs to change. I
don't think this is a result of our ClassLoader structure.
I have no real issue with our CXF server module requiring Spring.
I'm less happy if we're requiring that Spring be accessible from a
client application module to configure CXF web services client
capabilities.
I'm way less happy if we require the same Spring instance be
accessible
from the CXF server module and the client application module. This is
the case, at the moment. I think this needs to be changed.
Why should it be changed? This seems to work with someone using
Tomcat...just not Geronimo.
Does Tomcat embed CXF? Does CXF distribute Tomcat binaries configured
to provide CXF-based web services? Or does CXF distribute CXF and
associated dependent jars which can be packaged into a WAR and
subsequently deployed into a web container?
I believe it's the latter. In which case, you're not giving me an
apples-to-apples comparison, IMO.
--kevan
