Hi,
Now we have some solution:
1. Package all jars in the kit, put newer version jars like rhino into
endorsed directory.
2. Ship two kits for both JDK5 and JDK6 as Bo's suggestion.
3. Put jars embedded in JDK6 into one endorsed directory.
Which one is better do you think, and more ideas?
Thanks
Jeff
Bozhong Lin wrote:
After making CXF to support JDK6, I wonder if there is a necessary to make
two different distributions for download, i.e., one for JDK5 and one for
JDK6. The distribution for JDK6 can skip packaging those jars available in
JDK6.
What do you guys think on this?
Regards,
Bo
On Jan 7, 2008 10:25 AM, Jeff Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback.
Jeff
Glen Mazza wrote:
Another issue to keep in mind is that even if you are using JDK6, you
will probably someday need to override one of the JARs already in the
JDK6 with a newer version to fix some bug. So make sure your solution
is flexible enough to handle these types of scenarios.
Glen
Am Freitag, den 04.01.2008, 13:15 -0500 schrieb Daniel Kulp:
Out of curiosity, why does having that stuff in the manifest cause a
problem? The classloaders should, by default, grab the stuff from
jre/lib first anyway. Thus, the stuff in the manifest should be
ignored.
Dan
On Friday 04 January 2008, Jeff Zhang wrote:
Hi,
I work on CXF jdk6 support. My proposal is split
cxf-manifest-incubator.jar into 2 manifest jars, one includes all
javax jars embedded in JDK6, such as jaxws, jaxb, stax, jws,
annotation, etc..., we can call it cxf-specs-manifest.jar. And another
one contains the rest jars.
If users use JDK5, they include both manifest jars in classpath, if
use JDK6, they can only include one manifest. For samples shipped with
CXF, we can define rule in common_build.xml, it get JDK version from
OS environment, and put right manifest jar into classpath.
Do you think it reasonable?
Thanks
Jeff
