Guillaume, If you sign up for the additional work :) then you can have it :) :) Seriously, am looking forward to improving both projects AND looking forward to more participation from redhat and objectweb.
-- dims On 8/18/05, Steve Viens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Initially we developed Scout on top of jUDDI in order to quickly produce a > type 0 JAXR provider. Type 0 (zero) providers support accessing UDDI > registries only. The goal however is for Scout to become a type 1 provider > which would include support for both UDDI and ebXML registries. > > As you would probably expect, there are no plans for jUDDI to support ebXML. > If a move to an XMLBeans would enable Scout to support both UDDI and ebXML > (a type 1 provider) then I'm in favor of a move to XMLBeans and eliminating > Scout's dependency on jUDDI. > > Steve > > > On 8/18/05, Fernando Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > Fernando, > > > > > > Please include everyone's view point. If people who use juddi want to > > > use scout they should not have to include xmlbeans jars (EXACTLY the > > > way you don't want to use juddi jars). So best case scenario here is > > > to have a pluggable way in scout to do either xmlbeans or juddi types. > > > No one is going to complain that way. Please let me know if this is ok > > > for you. > > > > > > > It actually seems that the types used by jUDDI are unrelated (i.e. they > > should be) to the ones used by Scout (except for some JARX types to UDDI > > or ebXML mapping defined by the JAXR spec). > > > > Scout and jUDDI should only communicate using SOAP messages and be > > completely independent code-wise. > > > > So jUDDI can continue to use its own types (UDDI types?) and Scout can > > switch to the more independent XMLBeans, as it should not be using any > > UDDI or ebXML type internally. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > > > > > > -- dims > > > > > > On 8/18/05, Fernando Nasser < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Hi Anil, > > >> > > >>Anil Saldhana wrote: > > >> > > >>>Scout 0.5 release will be done the way it is. > > >>> > > >> > > >>0.5 ? > > >> > > >>But your trunk/etc/project.xml already says > > >> > > >><currentVersion>1.0-SNAPSHOT</currentVersion> > > >> > > >>As a result Apache Geronimo and ObjectWeb JOnAS, as well as Red Hat > > >>RHAPS and the JPackage.org RPM of Scout have all been labeled > > >>1.0-SNAPSHOT (+date). > > >> > > >>Going back to anything less then 1.0 now will break everybody's > > >>dependency checks. > > >> > > >>Can't you continue to use 1.0-SNAPSHOT until you are ready for 1.0? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>Once we add the asynchronous feature required by the > > >>>JAXR 1.0 spec, we will do the Scout 1.0 release. > > >>> > > >>>Before we do the 1.0 release, we can see if there is > > >>>really any major incentive in removing the juddi data > > >>>types and bringing in XMLBeans. > > >>> > > >> > > >>A major incentive: not bringing the juddi jar into the classloader space > > >>of anyone who wants to use Scout, perhaps even with some other Directory > > >>service different from jUDDI. > > >> > > >>I was talking to Guillaume on irc and we think that a complete > > >>separation between Scout and jUDDI would be ideal. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>At Scout and jUDDI, we have always fostered pluggable > > >>>deployments. > > >>> > > >> > > >>But in this specific case, there doesn't seem to be any advantage at all > > >>in providing pluggable _internal_ types. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>Using juddi data types is an internal implementation > > >>>detail of Scout. So there are no issues with using > > >>>XMLBeans as an internal implementation detail. But we > > >>>need to investigate and test. > > >>> > > >> > > >>Right. We would be willing to help changing the types if everyone is in > > >>accordance with that. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>I will have to look at XMLBeans a bit further. > > >>> > > >> > > >>Thank you. > > >> > > >> > > >>Best regards, > > >>Fernando > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>--- 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 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>__________________________________________________ > > >>>Do You Yahoo!? > > >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > >>>http://mail.yahoo.com > > >>> > > >> > > >>-- > > >>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
