juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Viens" <svi...@steveviens.com>
Subject RE: [jUDDI-developers] RE: jUDDI Task: Log4j implementation of the Logger interface
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:22:13 GMT
Ummmmm, I already added them (yesterday) just to be in the safe side. I
could remove them but I'd rather include them until we're sure we don't
need them (or want them).

Any objections?



-----Original Message-----
From: juddi-developers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:juddi-developers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Alex
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:23 PM
To: juddi-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [jUDDI-developers] RE: jUDDI Task: Log4j implementation of
the Logger interface

> bundled into the 'war' file.  Second, the WEB-INF/lib directory 
> contains the following jar files:
>  axis.jar
>  hsqldb.jar
>  juddi.jar
>  uddi4j.jar
>  xerces.jar
> I assume we also need 'log4j-core.jar' and possibly 'clutil.jar' and 
> 'wsdl4j.jar'. Is that right? I ask because I noticed these two 
> additional libraries in my 2 month old axis installation.

That's right .. log4j, clutil and wsdl4j also come with the latest Axis
(alpha 3.)  However we might not need to ship them all.  I just tried
removing clutil and wsdl4j, and then ran a quick find_business test
without problems.  I would need to dig a bit further about not bundling
clutil to see when it actually gets used.  It's a small jar (10k), so
probably not that big of a deal with shipping it.  wsdl4j on the other
hand might be a little safer to not ship.  I would need to look into it
further to make sure that somebody trying to access wsdl functionality
doesn't bring down
axis+juddi.  It's a 100k jar, not that large either .. do you think it's
worth checking to see if we really need it?

I don't see us needing WSDL support in the near term.  Even when we will
be adding 'wsdl support', that will probably mean letting UDDI entries
point to WSDL docs rather than generating WSDLs for jUDDI calls.  Does
anybody see a good reason for generating WSDLs for UDDI soap queries?  I
don't see anytime runtime negotiation going on .. UDDI clients and
servers know about the structure of UDDI soap responses and requests
ahead of time.


juddi-developers mailing list juddi-developers@lists.sourceforge.net

View raw message