my 2 cents...it's upto juddi dev's to propose a vote. Scenario #1: if juddi uses XMLBeans as default, then scout can use XMLBeans as default. Scenario #2: if juddi does not use XMLBeans as default, then Scout should support both juddi types and xmlbeans.
is this clearer? thanks, dims On 8/17/05, Fernando Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Fernando, > > > > then folks who primarily use juddi and want to use scout on the client > > will have one less library to deal with :) > > > > Are you saying that you agree with using XMLBeans and dropping the jUDDI > types (on both sides, Scout and jUDDI of course)? > > > > > -- 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > 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
