On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ant elder (JIRA)
<[email protected]>wrote:

>
>    [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2534?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12621751#action_12621751]
>
> ant elder commented on TUSCANY-2534:
> ------------------------------------
>
> I will verify when an 1.3.1 RC is made but I don't think it does yet
> because there are still a few other places where the dependencies need
> tidying up, for example i think one would be implementation.bpel will still
> be bring those in so they'll still end up being included in the binary
> distro. So with those changes above its only tidied it up for the main
> tuscany runtime and the axis2 binding.  I will look at what else is bring
> them in when an 1.3.1 RC is made but fixing it may start making changes in
> other extensions which would then all need proper testing as part of 1.3.1
>
> > WebSphere issue java.lang.ClassCastException:
> org.apache.xerces.jaxp.DocumentBuilderFactoryImpl incompatible with
> javax.xml.parsers.DocumentBuilderFactory
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >                 Key: TUSCANY-2534
> >                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2534
> >             Project: Tuscany
> >          Issue Type: Bug
> >          Components: Java SCA Core Runtime
> >    Affects Versions: Java-SCA-1.3
> >         Environment: WinXP SP2 IBM JDK5 WebSphere 6.1
> >            Reporter: Simon Laws
> >             Fix For: Java-SCA-1.3.1
> >
> >
> > This thread gives details http://markmail.org/message/pd5fdtq5hn3zbmwg.
> > An SCA contribution wrapped up in an EJB jar inside a EAR file complained
> about incompatible XML parsers until the xml-apis.jar that Tuscany ships
> with was removed from the EAR?
>
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>
>
The other option is for us to investigate further why th application doesn't
work in WebSphere when we ship this jar with the application.

Simon

Reply via email to