On Monday, October 24, 2011 4:24:36 PM Gert Vanthienen wrote: > L.S., > > > Personally, I don't think this was intentional - at least, I don't recall > any discussion about switching back to the Geronimo implementation so I'm > guessing we just picked the wrong implementation when we noticed the two > OSGi activator implementations in the resulting JAR. Unless Freeman or > someone else knows about a good reason to stick with the Geronimo > implementation, it looks like it would be both more consistent and easier > (i.e. not opt-in required) to switch to the ServiceMix implementation for > everything.
I certainly like the SMX locator more. However, now that I understand what is going on with the Geronimo version, it's less of an issue to me. CXF now has the "opt in" header and I've updated the features.xml to pull in the required Geronimo registry. Thus, I now have it working. So consider this a "low priority, but certainly would be nice to have" kind of thing. Dan > > > Regards, > > Gert Vanthienen > ------------------------ > FuseSource > Web: http://fusesource.com > Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems the JAXWS-API 2.2 spec uses a quite different mechanism than > > all > > other specs. > > It embeds the Geronimo osgi bits for specs, while all other usually use > > the ServiceMix one (the osgi locator). > > In addition to be incoherent, those specs also use a slightly different > > mechanism, as providers have to opt-in by adding an osgi header. > > > > Is there any reason for not using the same mechanism as for other specs > > ? > > > > -- > > ------------------------ > > Guillaume Nodet > > ------------------------ > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------ > > Open Source SOA > > http://fusesource.com -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://www.talend.com
