I think it makes sense to remove the Axiom support. There are two reasons for that:
1. Axiom enables a couple of optimizations (deferred parsing, pull-through and sourced elements) that don't exist in DOM. However, I don't see how Woden (or code that uses Woden) would benefit from these optimizations. 2. We have a DOM compatible Axiom implementation (although the level of DOM compliance is currently not very high). Also, I think that at some point in the future, the default Axiom implementation will support DOM (with a decent level of compliance). Andreas On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Sagara Gunathunga <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ! > -- > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
