On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Martin Gainty <[email protected]> wrote: > Ive have extensively implemented DOM4j based Axiom specifically: > > <groupId>org.apache.ws.commons.axiom</groupId> > <artifactId>axiom</artifactId> > <name>Axiom</name> > <version>1.2.9-SNAPSHOT</version> > > > I have'nt seen any matrix detailing the capabilities of axiom-woden vs > axiom-dom4j so I cannot say dropping woden would impact future Axiom > implementations > but it does seem like a duplication of effort to support both OM > implementations > > Is there a matrix available to illustrate features and > functions capabilities of axiom-woden vs axiom-dom4j?
Please note that there is no DOM4J implementation available for Woden-API it's W3C DOM implementation for Woden-API. Functionality wise both implementations are more or less same but there is no matrix available. Thanks ! > Martin > ------------------------------------ > Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene > Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte > Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht > dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine > rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von > E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen. > > > >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:12:38 -0400 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [WODEN] Future of Woden Axiom implementation ? > >> >> What is the status of WSDL 2.0 ? how many WS stacks use WSDL 2.0 ?. >> >> Deepal >> > Hi Devs, >> > >> > I'm thinking about future of Axiom (OM) based implementation of Woden >> > API for sometime, whether we should continue or drop support from next >> > release ? >> > >> > AFAIK original objective of OM implementation is to support Axis2 but >> > in fact Axis2 never used OM implementation instead Axis2 still use DOM >> > based implementation. Also in my POV there is no such drawbacks with >> > DOM implementation to move Axis2 to use OM implementation. At the >> > moment there is no clear indication about users of OM implementation >> > too. In this situation it is kind of a overhead to maintain OM >> > implementation further specially with small number of developers. At >> > the beginning Woden had plans for number of cool features such as >> > supporting to both WSDL versions etc, but all original developers have >> > been disappeared from the community few years ago hence it's seem OK >> > to re-prioritize objectives based on current requirements and >> > resources. >> > >> > This also important decision to reduce complexities among Woden >> > artifacts, at the moment it's required to have at least 3 JAR files >> > to use Woden framework as woden-api, woden-impl-common and >> > woden-impl-dom/woden-impl-om. Dropping OM implementation allows to >> > merge these artifacts and deliver above 3 module as a single JAR file >> > called woden.jar. IMO this kind of single artifact deliverables are >> > more natural for utility projects and easy to deploy on OGSI >> > containers too. >> > >> > Personally I don't have energy to maintain both implementations, also >> > without actual users no point to maintain OM implementation further. >> > Based on above facts I would like to suggest terminate OM support from >> > next release and move forward the project with what ever the useful >> > features. >> > >> > Any thoughts ? >> > >> > >> > Thanks ! >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> -- Sagara Gunathunga Blog - http://ssagara.blogspot.com Web - http://people.apache.org/~sagara/ LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssagara --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
