Hi Dan,
Yes, it does matter, User can override the default jaxws frontend, as
you can see, if there are two frontend with the same name and i checked
the provider name, we'll pick up the third party provider's
implementations instead of cxf default ones.
And also we will use the version attribute, in case we found more than
one implementation with different version, but i did not have time and
also currently there's no requirement to do this. so i just remain that
attribute.
James.
> OK. Thats all I really want to do - although in the future I might
> want to
> bundle the xmlbeans/jibx databinding as well.
>
> Do the attributes on <plugin> even matter then?
>
> - Dan
>
> On 4/11/07, James Mao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Make sure my point is clear
>>
>> I'm OK to bundle the jaxws/jaxb as a default tool plugin into the
single
>> jar,
>> Previous plugin description already works in this way.
>> What i think is <plugins> is a redundant. i think we can safely
revert
>> to previous implementation.
>>
>> just put one tools-plugin.xml into META-INF dir and include jaxws
>> frontend and jaxb databinding inside the <plugin> should fit the
>> requirements.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James.
>>
>> > Hi Dan,
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi James,
>> >>
>> >> Two quick things before I revert:
>> >> 1. How would I merge the various <plugin> attributes from the
>> >> different xml
>> >> files? i.e. they both have different name attributes. What
should I
>> >> do when
>> >> combining the different tools.xml into 1 xml file? Or is that
>> >> attribute not
>> >> even really used?
>> >
>> > To combine is not a good idea, databinding and fronetend they are
>> > different things, if you take a look at the svn log, i did it
before,
>> > it's looks like this:
>> > <plugin name="cxf.default" provider="cxf.apache.org">
>> > <frontend name="jaxws">
>> > ...
>> > </frontend>
>> > <databinding name="jaxb">
>> > ...
>> > </databinding>
>> > </plugin>
>> >
>> > it works, but i think it's not good, so i separated, and keep every
>> > part independent with each other. and also move the plugin
description
>> > into META-INF dir.
>> >
>> > The plugin node actually just a wrap element, what really we
care is
>> > the frontend and databinding inside the element.
>> >
>> >> 2. You'll still be able to use the tools separated, but as we
agreed
>> >> on the
>> >> mailing list, it'd be great if we could produce a cxf.jar with
>> >> everything,
>> >> including the tools modules so users only need to manage one jar.
>> >
>> > It's ok to have a single jar, but i don't think we need put the
>> > plugins inside the jar, that does not make much sense to me.
>> > Take eclipse as an example, you can have a core eclipse, but other
>> > extensions are independent jars, you can download from
eclipse/plugins
>> >
>> > I would suggest that we pack Common/Api/Rt/ToolCore and keep the
>> > plugins out side of the single jar, just like you are not going to
put
>> > the codegen plugins/ eclipse plugins/ jdee plugins inside the
single
>> > jar, right?
>> >
>> > For your reference
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > James.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
