L.S.,
Since Freeman already committed a fix this morning, how about adding a specs 1.9.0 release to the ServiceMix 4.4.0 release plan? There's hardly any work involved in doing the specs release so we might as well include this improvement while we're at it... Regards, Gert Vanthienen ------------------------ FuseSource Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
