Thilina,
We can get people to fix the geronimo impl. IF we tell them what is
broken. FYI, latest Axis 1.X is ok with geronimo's jars.
-- dims
On 6/28/05, Thilina Gunarathne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> For the Axis2 to compile and work without attachments we earliar decided to
> use Gerenimo spec Java Mail & Activation. (It's like having a set of
> interfaces, cause those impl's are not functioning correctly at this moment)
> Those two jars are respectively 95kb and 19 kb.
> But attachments will *not* work with them. Only others will work.
>
> IMHO Axis 1.x uses these Java mail & Activation optionally cause Sun does
> not allow others to keep them in downloadable places (eg: Mavan Repo). But
> if Gerenimo impl turn out well we don;t have that prob.
> On the other hand with MTOM we are tightely bounding the Binary stuff to OM.
> Where in 1.x it's only SwA which can be handled at transport levels making
> the things simpler to switch. IMHO if we need to have MTOM tightely
> integrated then we have to pay the price of the size of two jars.
>
> I just wonder hows the situation with SAAJ & SMTP with this problem.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> ~Thilina
>
> PS: I'm working hard to make the dependancy only with Java Activation. (Even
> Sun's Activation impl is 54kb). Lets hope for the best. :)
>
>
>
> On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> > dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
> >
> > Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> > that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> > doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> > switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
> >
> > class OmOutput {
> > private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
> >
> > ..
> > }
> >
> > now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> > SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
> >
> > s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
> >
> > BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> > belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > Hi All;
> > >
> > > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> > >
> > > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> > >
> > > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > > mail jar for normal execution.
> > >
> > > Is that Accceptable?
> > >
> > > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Srinath
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> "May the SourcE be with u"
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
