+1 :) On 8/18/05, Anil Saldhana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A good step would be for Guillaume to submit his work > involving JCA as a contribution to Apache so that we > can use it in Apache Scout. Then the customer will > have the choice of plug and play. > > --- Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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]> > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >
-- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
