Dims,
I may be missing something because I don't know all the details, so
please forgive me if it is a silly question.
If we have APL more or less standard types from Apache XMLBeans, why do
we need to have the option of using jUDDI own types?
Why not just drop the non-standard jUDDI types and plainly switch
everything to use XMLBeans only ( a "de facto" standard)?
Best regards,
Fernando
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
As long as it's pluggable (use XMLBeans OR jUDDI), Am ok.
thanks,
dims
On 8/12/05, Guillaume Sauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys
We want to integrate Scout in JOnAS as a replacement for the JAXR
Reference Implementation.
With Scout we can get ride of JAXB-RI too (used by JAXR-RI) and use OSS :)
Scout has been very easily embed in JOnAS as a ResourceAdapter and seems
to work very well, thanks to your hard work: )
We can see that Scout depends on jUDDI, and jUDDI depends on many
jakarta commons libs.
Given the JOnAS ClassLoader architecture, the Scout RA (and all
depending libs : scout, juddi, common-*, ...) will be loaded in a
'commons' ClassLoader, this is a top level Loader.
So, if a user package his/her application/webapp with a lib already
provided by JOnAS (version can differ) there can be a conflict!
More, if a user want to change the jUDDI (webapp) version, he can't do
that (classes in top level loader are always loaded first) !
As we want to interfere a minimum with the classes packaged in our
user's application, in order to avoid conflicts, we want to remove the
dependency on jUDDI.
To do this, we will have to rewrite some kind of RegistryProxy, avoid
the use of jUDDI's handlers and datatypes, ...
We thought to use xmlbeans as a replacement for UDDI datatypes
I want to know what do you think of this proposal ?
I think it can be useful for geronimo guys too (and for the same
classloader reasons).
Regards
Guillaume
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
