I'm +1 on the testing this out. I seem to remember that a while ago I've had some problems with CXF when the <hidden-classes/> was actually enabled for Spring classes in the Jetty config but maybe it will work better now. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg41202.html. Please also run the testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests/jaxws-*/ tests to verify that everything works ok after the change.
But I have a few comments on this change in general. First, why are we adding the <hidden-classes/> bits for Spring and CXF only? Aren't we in the same boat with other libraries, e.g. Axis2, Commons Logging, etc.? Also, I think the <hidden-classes/> change should go into both Tomcat and Jetty configs (since for example the Tomcat assembly could be switched to run CXF). Jarek On 7/31/07, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Aleksandr Tarutin (JIRA) wrote: > > > java.lang.NoSuchMethodError in > > org.springframework.context.i18n.LocaleContextHolder > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > > > > Key: GERONIMO-3348 > > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ > > GERONIMO-3348 > > Project: Geronimo > > Issue Type: Bug > > Security Level: public (Regular issues) > > Affects Versions: 2.0-M6 > > Environment: 2.6.18-gentoo-r2 #1 Sat Nov 11 03:36:37 EST > > 2006 i686 Pentium III (Katmai) GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > > JDK-1.5.0.12 > > > > Reporter: Aleksandr Tarutin > > This problem is caused by incompatibilities between the spring jars > included within the cxf module and the spring jars included within > the application. I think this is going to be a pretty common failure > scenario. Rather than require a lot of Spring users to create a > geronimo deployment plan, I'd like to add the necessary hidden- > classes to the jetty6-deployer defaultEnvironment, namely: > > --- jetty6-deployer/src/plan/plan.xml (revision 560807) > +++ jetty6-deployer/src/plan/plan.xml (working copy) > @@ -130,7 +130,10 @@ > <type>car</type> > </dependency> > </dependencies> > - <hidden-classes/> > + <hidden-classes> > + <filter>org.springframework.</filter> > + <filter>org.apache.cxf.</filter> > + </hidden-classes> > <non-overridable-classes> > <filter>java.</filter> > <filter>javax.</filter> > > I'm running some TCK tests, now. Assuming things look good, I'd like > to commit to 2.0. Any objections? We could do nothing and require > users to create a geronimo deployment plan which hides these same > classes, instead. However, I'd like to make this scenario work out-of- > the-box... > > Jarek has mentioned that with a bit of work, our cxf module need not > be dependent on Spring configuration. This seems like a good idea. > I'd certainly like to see the dependency dropped. However, don't see > that happening in time for 2.0. > > --kevan >
