On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think we have an acceptable solution for this whole CXF/Spring
issue. First, CXF will continue to be configured with Spring as
before. Second, all web applications will now get an automatic
filtering for Spring classes and resources. That
shoul
I think we have an acceptable solution for this whole CXF/Spring
issue. First, CXF will continue to be configured with Spring as
before. Second, all web applications will now get an automatic
filtering for Spring classes and resources. That
should enable applications to have their own versions of
No...that made much more sense to me ;-)
I think convenience is the way to go. I am following you now.
Thanks,
Jeff
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> So perhaps I am missing something and you could help clarify this. You
>> say "It'
On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
David,
So perhaps I am missing something and you could help clarify this.
You
say "It's by no means obvious to me that treating this as a problem
with
the coding of our classloaders is appropriate." Yet in your 1, 2,
and 3
options, yo
On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:16 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 27, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
Cool down a minute and think about this. What happens in tomcat if
you want to use cxf + an incompatible version of spring in your
app? You bundle cxf + spring
David,
So perhaps I am missing something and you could help clarify this. You
say "It's by no means obvious to me that treating this as a problem with
the coding of our classloaders is appropriate." Yet in your 1, 2, and 3
options, you seem to be saying its basically a problem with
classloading.
On Aug 27, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
K. Can you explain to me what functionality is being taken away? Dan
said function would be lost, but then listed functionality and
said that
configuring them "becomes quite a bit harder". Nor do I know how this
increas
I've CC:ed you. However, I'd prefer that you respond to the dev list,
only (or cc: me, not reply directly). My mail rules for email
addressed directly to me puts mail in my personal folder. I monitor
Geronimo mail more frequently than personal mail... ;-) Perhaps I
need to tweak my rules a
Kevan Miller wrote:
> K. Can you explain to me what functionality is being taken away? Dan
> said function would be lost, but then listed functionality and said that
> configuring them "becomes quite a bit harder". Nor do I know how this
> increased complexity would be who bears the burden for th
On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
From my standpoint, it would be greatly preferred if you could
find a way
to leave spring for CXF. There is definitely a lot of
functionality
that would be lost if
Kevan,
On Monday 27 August 2007, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > From my standpoint, it would be greatly preferred if you could find
> > a way
> > to leave spring for CXF. There is definitely a lot of
> > functionality that would be lost if spring is no
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> From my standpoint, it would be greatly preferred if you could find a way
>> to leave spring for CXF. There is definitely a lot of functionality
>> that would be lost if spring is not available. In particular, if
On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
From my standpoint, it would be greatly preferred if you could find
a way
to leave spring for CXF. There is definitely a lot of functionality
that would be lost if spring is not available. In particular, if a
user
want to configure vario
From my standpoint, it would be greatly preferred if you could find a way
to leave spring for CXF. There is definitely a lot of functionality
that would be lost if spring is not available. In particular, if a user
want to configure various things like message logging or
WS-Addressing/WS-RM,
On Aug 25, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Kevan,
IIU the reason you are asking, removal of the Spring dependencies
from
CXF would appear to be a band aid and temporary fix to the real
issue.
Is this about
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> Kevan,
>>
>> IIU the reason you are asking, removal of the Spring dependencies from
>> CXF would appear to be a band aid and temporary fix to the real issue.
>> Is this about the Spring versioning and different versi
On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Kevan,
IIU the reason you are asking, removal of the Spring dependencies from
CXF would appear to be a band aid and temporary fix to the real issue.
Is this about the Spring versioning and different versions getting
loaded? (If not then never m
On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Kevan,
I'm out on vacation all next week but I was planning to take a look at
this issue right after I get back. My intention was to get it done for
the 2.0.2 release.
Cool. That'd be great!
--kevan
Kevan,
I'm out on vacation all next week but I was planning to take a look at
this issue right after I get back. My intention was to get it done for
the 2.0.2 release.
Jarek
j
On 8/24/07, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've run into multiple issues caused by the dependency of our cxf
Kevan,
IIU the reason you are asking, removal of the Spring dependencies from
CXF would appear to be a band aid and temporary fix to the real issue.
Is this about the Spring versioning and different versions getting
loaded? (If not then never mind)
Jeff
Kevan Miller wrote:
> We've run into multi
We've run into multiple issues caused by the dependency of our cxf
module on Spring.
Jarek, you've mentioned that it's possible to switch from Spring-
based configuration of CXF to, hmm, some other form of configuration
(xml/programmatic?). How hard would this be? Could we get this done
fo
21 matches
Mail list logo
