On Thursday 18 November 2010 4:04:02 pm KARR, DAVID (ATTSI) wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:55 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: KARR, DAVID (ATTSI) > > Subject: Re: JAX-WS implementation uses Stax, but not JAX-RS? > > > > On Thursday 18 November 2010 11:53:36 am KARR, DAVID (ATTSI) wrote: > > > I've been working on separate efforts using CXF, one using JAX-RS in > > > WebLogic 10.3.3, and one using JAX-WS in WebLogic 10MP1. I've had > > no > > > > real trouble with the first effort, but I've effectively given up on > > > > the > > > > > second effort. > > > > > > The JAX-WS implementation in WebLogic 10MP1 fails because of > > > > classloader > > > > > problems with the Stax API. I've followed all the advice on solving > > > this problem, but it just doesn't work in WL 10MP1. It's possible > > > > these > > > > > problems were fixed in WL 10.3.3 because I read about some people > > > implementing particular solutions and having it work, but only in > > > 10.3.3. > > > > > > After I reached this conclusion with the JAX-WS implementation, I > > > wondered why I wasn't having trouble with the JAX-RS implementation. > > > > It > > > > > could very well be because I'm using WebLogic 10.3.3, but I also > > > > noticed > > > > > that the resulting set of libraries for the JAX-RS implementation > > has > > > > the "geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec-1.0.1.jar", but not the Woodstox jar > > > > (I > > > > > only added jars that resolved issues in my implementation). Does > > > > this > > > > > mean that the JAX-RS implementation doesn't use the Stax API? > > > > On any Java6 implementation, you likely don't need the stax-api jar at > > all. > > Likely, WL already has it as well. Thus, I'd just remove it in both > > cases. > > Good to know, but WebLogic 10MP1 uses JDK 1.5, believe it or not.
Right, but if you are having classloader issues with stax-api, then it likely has stax-api already built into it's classloaders. Thus, you wouldn't need ours. I assume. -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog
