Yep...so for this reason I would probably ask that CXF hang on JAXB 2.0 for the time being.
Jeff Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Sun sometimes allows implementations to certify using a newer api then > was in required by the original JEE specification. My guess is that the > next version of Glassfish uses these apis, so hopefully if we ask, > they'll give us new signature files or a patched TCK. > > Anyway, to find out someone will have to ask on the Apache open-jcp > list, and that person will have to commit to hounding that list until we > get an up or down response. It is a lot of work and can take > weeks/months to get a response, so I suggest you don't agree to take on > this task unless you are going to have the time and commitment. > > -dain > > On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: > >> AFAICT...the TCK for JAXB appears to be for 2.0.: >> >> https://jaxb.dev.java.net/tck.html >> >> and it appears that particular TCK is open to all ;-) >> >> On that web site it clearly states: >> >> ************************************************** >> Compatibility artifacts are available as follows: >> >> * The JAXB 2.0 PFD specification. >> ************************************************** >> >> We probably need to kick this up to Sun, but for safety, I would stick >> with 2.0 until we hear back from them. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Jeff >> >> David Blevins wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: >>> >>>> I think we are all open to input on this particular point. Is there >>>> any way we can figure out what the JEE5 requirements are though? >>> >>> Assuming 2.1 is backward compatible to 2.0 the only real limitation can >>> see is that often when testing the api libraries themselves (in this >>> case the jaxb api), the requirements often follow a "no more and no >>> less" policy. Which means that say we wanted to start implementing the >>> new imaginary EJB 3.1 and it added two new methods on the >>> InvocationContext interface, it would fail JEE5 certification. >>> >>> I don't know what the case is for apis associated with jaxb 2.1 vs jaxb >>> 2.0 or jax-ws 2.1 vs jax-ws 2.0. Someone needs to look at the tck to >>> know for sure. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> - Dan >>>> >>>> On 3/1/07, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jarek Gawor wrote: >>>>> Oh... I didn't even realize you guys are targeting JAX-WS 2.1. Now, >>>>> I'm not sure how that affects things. >>>> >>>> If the JavaEE5 TCK is only JAX-WS 2.0 compliant, this may be a problem. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jarek >>>>> >>>>> On 3/1/07, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> I'm happy to revert the change, but I think that we ultimately need >>>> it. I >>>>>> believe we're targeting JAX-WS 2.1 (we switched the API jar the other >>>>>> day), >>>>>> and that requires JAXB 2.1. There are many benefits from a user >>>>>> perspective >>>>>> in 2.1 . For isntance it has a lot better functionality for things >>>> like >>>>>> WS-A >>>>>> and also makes it easier for people to use substitution types, which >>>>>> requires all sorts of hacks right now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is Geronimo just looking to release JAX-WS 2.0 support or 2.1? Any >>>>>> idea if >>>>>> its possible to certify Geronimo with 2.1? Or does certification >>>>>> require 2.0? >>>>>> I'm not sure what the status is of the JAX-WS 2.1 TCK either. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> (I CC'd [EMAIL PROTECTED] in, hope thats ok) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/28/07, Jarek Gawor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi again, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CXF code was recently upgraded to JAXB 2.1 and so I tired to figure >>>>>>> out what sort of implications that might have on Geronimo. First of >>>>>>> all, JAXB is one of those libraries that is shared by all >>>> applications >>>>>>> in the Geronimo server. We also have a bunch of different components >>>>>>> using JAXB to do deployment descriptor parsing, etc. So if we >>>> upgrade >>>>>>> JAXB in G, we have to retest all these subcomponents to make sure >>>> they >>>>>>> are ok. And I think in general that should be ok but potentially >>>> time >>>>>>> consuming. Another potential issue that somebody raised was TCK >>>>>>> testing. We don't know what happens if for example TCK expects JAXB >>>>>>> 2.0 API but gets JAXB 2.1 API/implementation. Maybe nothing (as >>>> things >>>>>>> supposed to be backwards compatible) but maybe it blows up. That's >>>>>>> another thing for us to worry about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, if this JAXB upgrade is not a critical issue for CXF would it be >>>>>>> possible to switch back to JAXB 2.0? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Jarek >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dan Diephouse >>>>>> Envoi Solutions >>>>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --Dan Diephouse >>>> Envoi Solutions >>>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
