Here is a draft - I didn't rerun the build but wanted to share the idea:
https://github.com/rmannibucau/cxf/commit/53c3c7016ce72dab61035a5417a7bba448fc3e43.
The pattern is the same for all: add a nested Portable feature which is
preferred for jaxrs over jaxws.

Do you think we can get a fix for the original soon - this one or another?
On my side I'd love to drop jaxws dead dependency ASAP in my apps which are
using logging feature and gzip feature.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 18:38, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a
écrit :

> Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-8053 to try to
> summarize it, feel free to comment/adjust the description if I miss
> anything.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 18:17, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> > On May 31, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmm, wouldn't a jaxws factory be a good replacement. So plan would be
>>
>> I’d prefer not as then you’d have a different programming model for
>> jax-ws built in features (MTOMFeature, AddressingFeature) and CXF provided
>> features.  And of course there is the “it would break everyone’s existing
>> code” issue.
>>
>> Having the JAX-WS versions wrapper/delegate to the native versions would
>> be fine and should be mostly seamless.   For the most part, there aren’t
>> any protected fields or anything that subclasses would be using so it
>> should work.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> > 1. deprecate current impl
>> > 2. replace them by CxfFeature native implementations (+ delegation for
>> 1)
>> > 3. provide a WSFeature.convert(cxfFeature) factory, also cxf can surely
>> > wrap them automatically in its impl.
>> >
>> > wdyt?
>> >
>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau <
>> https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> |  Blog
>> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/ <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/>>
>> | Old Blog
>> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>>
>> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau <https://github.com/rmannibucau>>
>> |
>> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau <
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> | Book
>> > <
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> <
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 17:00, Daniel Kulp <[email protected] <mailto:
>> [email protected]>> a écrit :
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On May 31, 2019, at 10:54 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> [email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Was not thinking to drop it from the parent but more to get soap free
>> >>> flavors of cxf features which would then be usable in jaxrs apps
>> without
>> >>> any issue.
>> >>> In other words we would get a cxf.AbstractCxfFeature used as base for
>> all
>> >>> impl and current existing ones would be deprecated and would delegate
>> to
>> >>> the new ones. No backward compat issue I think.
>> >>
>> >> We cannot deprecate them as they would still be required for JAX-WS
>> >> users.    We then have extra naming issues which can be confusing.
>> >> “LoggingFeature” is the jax-ws one, what is the non-jax-ws one called?
>> >> Maybe prefix them all with CXF like “CXFLoggingFeature”.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Daniel Kulp
>> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> - http://dankulp.com/blog <
>> http://dankulp.com/blog> <
>> >> http://dankulp.com/blog <http://dankulp.com/blog>>
>> >> Talend Community Coder - http://talend.com <http://talend.com/> <
>> http://coders.talend.com/ <http://coders.talend.com/>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> - http://dankulp.com/blog <
>> http://dankulp.com/blog>
>> Talend Community Coder - http://talend.com <http://coders.talend.com/>
>>
>

Reply via email to