Hi Francesco, it is a good idea to release a 1.1.0 version before we introduce the cxf depdendencies.
What parts of our plan do you think can go into trunk and what should wait till after the 1.1.0 release? My proposal is this: On 20.12.2012 17:08, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote: > On 20/12/2012 16:44, Andrei Shakirin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We just finished CXF migration POC for users and roles: it is >> successful and we approximately know how much efforts we need for >> complete migration. >> I would like to discuss the steps we are going to do for complete >> migration in next year. >> >> >> 1. Prerequisites >> >> a) Finishing persistence refactoring >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-241, >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-242 ) Before 1.1.0 >> >> b) Resolve ConnId CXF dependencies problem >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-251 ) >> >> After 1.1.0 >> >> 2. Steps >> >> a) Introduce interfaces for all controllers in >> org.apache.syncope.core.rest.controller (the same way as for user and >> role in cxf branch). Interfaces will contain JAX-RS annotations. >> Commit interfaces to trunk >> Before 1.1.0 (if time permits) >> b) Provide temporary implementation of interfaces (step a) for >> "old" spring based rest implementation (based on spring >> restTemplate). Commit implementations to trunk >> Before 1.1.0 (if time permits) >> c) Refactor core rest integration tests to use controller >> interfaces instead restTemplate. All rest tests must be successful. >> Commit refactored tests to trunk. This step helps to prepare tests to >> be used with CXF without breaking them >> Before 1.1.0 (if time permits) All the rest should be delayed till after 1.1.0 >> d) Add CXF dependencies, CXF Rest service configuration, >> exception mappers and jaxb/json providers, but do not activate them. >> Commit them to trunk >> >> e) Update TO classes for JAXB marshalling (if necessary) and >> keep spring marshalling working with the same TO classes. Commit it >> to trunk. If keeping JAXB marshalling parallel to spring is too >> complicate, this step will be done in cxf-migration branch after step >> (f) >> >> f) Create cxf-migration branch >> >> g) Activate using CXF Rest for controller interfaces instead >> temporary spring based implementation created on step (b). Fix >> possible problems >> >> h) Update console to use CXF Rest. Fix possible problems >> >> i) Merge cxf-migration branch with trunk >> >> Our idea is to keep cxf-migration branch possibly short time, split >> migration on some small steps and keep the tests and whole system >> running in between. >> Does this plan make sense? Any other suggestions / ideas? > Basically my proposal is to put into 1.1.0 all steps that have a low risk and provide some benefits. I think it will be good to convert a lot of the tests beforehand to the interfaces as this will make it easier to backport changes to 1.1.x later. Apart from the above things what is the plan for 1.1.0? Is it feature complete already or do you want to get some more features in? Best regards Christian
