[jboss-as7-dev] Removing JAXR & backward compatiblity

[David M. Lloyd]

Yeah, I was thinking they could just be aliases or stubs though.

On 03/01/2013 02:22 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> In terms of code organization, perhaps. But the way the extension is
> activated in the HCs and servers is via the module name. So if you want
> a 7.2 server to be able to run CMP, there is going to have to be a
> module named org.jboss.as.cmp.
>
> On 3/1/13 2:13 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>> I wonder - should we retain a skeletal version of each of these modules?
>>     I was thinking maybe it would be better to maintain one big
>> "removed-subsystems" or "compat-subsystems" module or something like
>> that where we can neatly/consistently organize all the model stuff for
>> these removals.
>>
>> On 03/01/2013 09:39 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>> Thanks Thomas, for raising this and for the JIRA.
>>>
>>> I've outlined what I think is needed for the stub extensions as a
>>> comment on https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-6656 .
>>>
>>> Can I request that folks hold up on deleting these subsystems? I think
>>> it will be easier to make these changes and then delete the unneeded
>>> runtime stuff than it will be to semi-restore from history and then change.
>>>
>>> The ones that have already been deleted, it's no big deal.
>>>
>>> On 2/28/13 10:35 AM, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>>> Ok, stub extensions is the obvious alternative to breaking compatibility. I'll leave this as a future task and create a jira for it if that's ok with you.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> --thomas
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 4:22 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/28/2013 05:57 AM, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> related to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * [AS7-6612 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-6612>] Remove JAXR support
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to know whether we need to preserve backward compatibility of
>>>>>> the configuration and if so what should happen if there is a jaxr config
>>>>>> item? Generally, can AS8 break backward compatibility with respect to
>>>>>> the config?
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian points out that we don't have a specific requirement to maintain
>>>>> compatibility with obsolete subsystems.  I think we could go ahead with
>>>>> the removal (granted part of the reason I feel this way is that I've
>>>>> already removed JSR-88...).
>>>>>
>>>>> Going forward though Kabir suggested that if we do want to, say, allow
>>>>> 7.x instances to be managed from an 8.x DC, that we should create "stub"
>>>>> extensions for the removed stuff that only carry and validate
>>>>> configuration but aren't actually supported on 8.x servers.  This seems
>>>>> like a valid possibility to me.
>>>>> --
>>>>> - DML
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>
>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Thomas Diesler
>>>> JBoss OSGi Lead
>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
- DML