Fernando, then folks who primarily use juddi and want to use scout on the client will have one less library to deal with :)
-- dims On 8/17/05, Fernando Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
