<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Comments inlined,<br>
<br>
Rio<br>
<br>
On 11/24/2010 03:14 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Richard,<br>
<br>
[removed the section on records mngmt, as that's going OT - we'll
get back to that later and in any case -as said- it's not a
priority]<br>
</blockquote>
ok<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED0172.5000700@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECF5D2.4000902@redhat.com" type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p><strong>API REVIEW</strong></p>
<p style="min-height: 8pt; height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"> </p>
<p>In the process of revisiting the JBossWS SPI, we need
to properly split the current jbossws-spi project
contents into:<br>
- a set of classes/interfaces required for proper
abstraction of jbossws components (pretty much what we
have today, 2 stacks, perhaps multiple supported
target container[3], ...) and to have a defined
interface towards other related jboss projects (EJB3
for instance)<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is what we have today. But I definitely agree this
needs further/proper cleanup!<br>
BTW there's EJB3 integration review on my plate. Hopefully
this will be fixed with AS7 integration.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes. This is one of the reason I'd like to get started with
this jbws 4 work asap, Carlo is needing any changes to the
interface with WS well before AS 7 goes Beta1 (as EJB3 is
meant for Beta1 as far as I understood)<br>
</blockquote>
I can do some EJB3 dependencies cleanup in AS 6 trunk to clarify
it before AS 6 goes final?<br>
Or I can use custom 3.4.0 JBossWS branches against AS CR1?</blockquote>
Frankly, atm I'd say neither of the 2 options above. The jbws
3.4.0 branches are meant only for changes required due to last
minute changes in CXF 2.3.1. The trunk (aimed at 3.4.1) is just
for the minimun required to have in AS6 final the same good tck6
results we have with AS 6 CR1. The freeze for AS 6 final is in few
weeks from now and the ejb3 team is not going to have time for
dealing with jbws spi changes for AS6.<br>
We're already reasoning in terms of AS7 / JBWS 4 here.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
ok<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED0172.5000700@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECF5D2.4000902@redhat.com" type="cite">Please
note that anything not really make use of the AS facilities
properly is not going to be pulled upstream</blockquote>
Well U need some JBossWS AS7 baseline first<br>
which will help U to learn basic AS 7 architecture rapidly.<br>
AS 7 team cannot expect/force others to be AS 7 experts first<br>
(before contributing anything to AS7)<br>
and doing "everything" right in first pull request.<br>
</blockquote>
Sure, what I meant is that -oversimplifying this a bit- it's not
probably acceptable to have an initial integration that is just an
"adaptor" to AS7 of what we had in AS6, but the solution should be
thought in terms of the AS7 design. Things went differently in the
past -I know- but I wouldn't like to re-write the AS integration
layer in -let's say- 7.1 like we had to with AS 5.x.</blockquote>
Neither I. We need starting AS7 baseline first ASAP with some
minimal staff working.<br>
And then refactor, refactor, ..., refactor as quick as possible. U
see what I mean, right?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite"> I'd
rather have a proper solution from the beginning. Not saying it
needs to be perfect, but...<br>
Anyway, this is just philosophy at this point ;-)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I wanna proper solution too. I'm kinda thinking about some safe
migration steps to AS7 without breaking many things against AS6 for
some time ;)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED0172.5000700@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECF5D2.4000902@redhat.com" type="cite">I'm
just saying that we can see this similarly, we need to think
about the deployment process in terms of a) something strictly
related to setting up the container for the ws deployment, b)
actually creating the endpoint and connecting it to the
container. Theoretically speaking (b) is pretty much what is
going to the service. This said, for sure we need to deal with
the details, but that comes after agreeing on a vision.<br>
</blockquote>
My vision is to support both AS 6 (CR1 or GA) & AS 7 in
JBossWS 4.0.x series.<br>
This is very important to track integration regressions we might
introduce during the AS 7 integration process.<br>
And we need to come to an agreement what we'll target with
JBossWS 4 series ASAP ;)<br>
</blockquote>
This is one of the key points to discuss. To be honest, I'm
wondering if the pain of supporting both AS 6 and 7 is balanced by
any real benefit here.<br>
</blockquote>
Well at the beginning we still need to do some cleanup in JBossWS
integration.<br>
This can go hand in hand with both AS 7 & AS 6 till the point
disconnect will be obvious.<br>
When we'll see there's no further way to continue supporting AS 6,
we'll drop it.<br>
The benefit would be U can still run TCK6 when U're connected with
AS 6 for some time ;)<br>
I think this is BIG BENEFIT.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite"> Do
you think we can really proceed in steps such that each of them
allows to still pass the testsuites (considering the major changes
to spi, the completely different AS structures, classloading,
...)?</blockquote>
Yes I believe (from AS6 POV). At least for some time ;)<br>
From AS7 POV no. But we need to be connected with AS 6<br>
during the refactoring as long as possible.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite"> I
can see major efforts being required for retro-fitting things to
AS 6, for supporting completely different installation steps, etc.<br>
This might even be possible, we need to evaluate pros and cons.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
This is implementation detail we'll discover very soon.<br>
I believe that this should be doable. Let's keep it optimistic ;)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED1DC8.4080809@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CED0172.5000700@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECF5D2.4000902@redhat.com" type="cite">
Regarding JAXRPC, it's legacy stuff, so it's acceptable to
treat that differently if we need to (meaning no domain /
public available service & api for that). Just the
"minimum" required for certification.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes, but this legacy staff needs some minimal cleanup too.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes, probably<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Alessio<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
jbossws-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jbossws-dev@lists.jboss.org">jbossws-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossws-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossws-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Richard Opalka
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ropalka@redhat.com">ropalka@redhat.com</a>
JBoss, by Red Hat
Office: +420 222 365 200
Mobile: +420 731 186 942
</pre>
</body>
</html>