The first question is can a fork of head be easily made compatible with the apis that existed in the 4.0 branch before th merge. I'm looking at some of the test changes now.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Diesler > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:14 AM > To: Alexey Loubyansky > Cc: Scott M Stark; jboss-development@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: Sync xml tests with HEAD for use with > jboss-xml-binding.jar > > > The snapshot version is a placeholder for itermediary > versions. 1.0RC1 is the now verified version that passes all > webservice tests in 4.0.x. > I'm happy with whatever solution you can provide that allows > jbossws-1.0 to be used with the upcomming 4.0.4 release. This > is necessary to provide our customers with the WS > functionality that we prommised to deliver by the end of last year. > > What I provided is a possible solution for projects that > depend on xml binding to be backportable to 4.0.x I don't > expect this solution to be final. Please drive the discussion > arround jbossxb binary usage further from here. > > Cheer > -thomas > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Alexey Loubyansky > >Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 14:53 > >To: Thomas Diesler > >Cc: Scott M Stark; jboss-development@lists.sourceforge.net > >Subject: Re: Sync xml tests with HEAD for use with > >jboss-xml-binding.jar > > > >So, after Scott said we can't have 'snapshot' you renamed > snapshot to > >RC1? I don't think this is what the problem was... > >Thomas, I think, you are going to fast w/o decisions made on > forums or > >dev list. This way you may create more problems than solve. > > > >You did start the discussion > >http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=391243 > >8#3912438 > > > >but there was no decision on how it should be done. If you > want it be > >like remoting then, I thought, at least a separate project/module > >should have been created for jbossxb first. > > > >Thomas Diesler wrote: > >> I would prefer you to maintain a single jbossxb version in > HEAD with > >> known binary drops in the repository that are then beeing > >used in 4.0.x. > >> Otherwise I have little confidence that we will get > retrotranslated > >> versions of projects that depend on jbossxb (like JBossWS) > >working in > >> 4.0.x > >> > >> Currently, the build of module common in 4.0.x does not use the > >> sources xml binding. > >> > >> IMHO, it'd be better to allocate the already scarce > >resources towards > >> a binary solution drop like we have with remoting. > >> The impact for customers should be minimal. > >> > >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Thomas Diesler > >> Web Service Lead > >> JBoss Inc. > >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Alexey Loubyansky > >>>Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:27 > >>>To: Thomas Diesler > >>>Cc: jboss-development@lists.sourceforge.net > >>>Subject: Sync xml tests with HEAD for use with > jboss-xml-binding.jar > >>> > >>>Thomas, > >>> > >>>as I understood Scott we don't want to update jbossxb users in > >>>jboss-4.x to use jbossxb from HEAD. The tests are supposed > >to reflect > >>>the api and functionality used. So, I don't think the tests > >from HEAD > >>>should be backported to branch 4. > >>> > >>>alex > >>> > >> > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list JBoss-Development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
