Great, thanks for all your help, it makes for a better release! Cheers
--Kurt
On 6/17/11 5:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
My source (kevan miller) thinks you need the "includes" line in the
NOTICE file. So I think it's time for a new vote...
thanks again!
david jencks
On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:49 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Kurt T Stam wrote:
On 6/17/11 9:26 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote:
On 6/16/11 8:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Kurt Stam wrote:
Hi David,
You should be able to specify a jaxws21 classifier to get the
jaxws21 version?
Hi Kurt,
I might not have explained the problem very well. However, I
compared the jars I got from (no profile) and -Pjaxws21 and the
only difference I can see is in some maven files, the class files
all have the same size so I'd guess they are identical. Can you
explain what the difference is? Usually a possibly different
dependency is not a good enough reason to add a classifier. I'd
suggest compiling with the jaxws 2.1 spec and marking it as
provided so the user can supply whatever spec they want. Also,
does this stuff really require jaxb 2.2? I'd guess that since it
works with jaxws 2.1 it doesn't.
Anyway.... back the the problem I think is happening (but haven't
verified).
When you run mvn deploy it updates the maven-metadata.xml to
indicate the timestamp and build number of the uploaded snapshot
artifacts. When maven tries to download a "SNAPSHOT" it looks at
this metadata to find the most recent upload. So, after I just
pushed a plain uddi-ws-3.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar the metadata looks like
this:
<metadata modelVersion="1.1.0">
<groupId>org.apache.juddi</groupId>
<artifactId>uddi-ws</artifactId>
<version>3.1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
<versioning>
<snapshot>
<timestamp>20110616.210535</timestamp>
<buildNumber>16</buildNumber>
</snapshot>
<lastUpdated>20110616210535</lastUpdated>
<snapshotVersions>
<snapshotVersion>
<extension>jar</extension>
<value>3.1.0-20110616.210535-16</value>
<updated>20110616210535</updated>
</snapshotVersion>
<snapshotVersion>
<extension>pom</extension>
<value>3.1.0-20110616.210535-16</value>
<updated>20110616210535</updated>
</snapshotVersion>
</snapshotVersions>
</versioning>
</metadata>
The previously existing uddi-ws-3.1.0-SNAPSHOT-jaxws21.jar
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/juddi/uddi-ws/3.1.0-SNAPSHOT/uddi-ws-3.1.0-SNAPSHOT-jaxws21.jar> still
there but not mentioned in the metadata so I think it may be
inaccessible. On the other hand somehow it got into the repo
without a timestamp which I thought was impossible so I could be
wrong.
I'd still like to understand what the 2 ways of building the jar
are for.
thanks!
david jencks
Hi David,
If you deploy the uddi-ws.jar compiled against jaxws-2.2 to an
environment where the jaxws-2.1 interfaces are used, then you will
get linkage errors (missing methods). I'm talking older appservers
here. So in short, our code maybe the same in both versions of the
jar but the byte code produced is slightly different.
At release time I ran
mvn clean deploy -Papache-release -Pjaxws21
to add the jaxws21 version of the jar. But as you found out, this
seems to mess with the meta data.
I'm open for suggestions on how to support this properly. Aren't
classifiers used to support different jdk versions?
Cheers,
--Kurt
David,
OK after re-testing it turns out we don't need the different
compile. Your assessment that the jars end up the same
was true. Not entirely sure how we got to our conclusion we needed
it before, but things are working now.
I suspect that somehow due to maven dependencies both the 2.1 and 2.2
jaxws specs got in the classpath or classloader graph and somehow
both possible orders got used.
Do you see any more issues before I start another vote?
rat results look good to me.
I updated the NOTICE file to fix the copyright year and not mention
junit. AFAICT juddi does not include any junit code and the NOTICE
file is only supposed to include info about stuff that is actually
included, not stuff that is used.
I'm asking someone whether the
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
line in the NOTICE file is needed..... even if it isn't it's not a
major disaster :-). I'll let you know if I find out before you start
the vote :-)
thanks for taking the time to straighten out all these little niggly
details :-)
david jencks
Cheers,
--Kurt
