juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Scout and jUDDI
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:15:40 GMT
Fernando,

then folks who primarily use juddi and want to use scout on the client
will have one less library to deal with :)

-- dims

On 8/17/05, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> wrote:
> Dims,
> 
> I may be missing something because I don't know all the details, so
> please forgive me if it is a silly question.
> 
> If we have APL more or less standard types from Apache XMLBeans, why do
> we need to have the option of using jUDDI own types?
> 
> Why not just drop the non-standard jUDDI types and plainly switch
> everything to use XMLBeans only ( a "de facto" standard)?
> 
> Best regards,
> Fernando
> 
> 
> 
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > As long as it's pluggable (use XMLBeans OR jUDDI), Am ok.
> >
> > thanks,
> > dims
> >
> > On 8/12/05, Guillaume Sauthier <Guillaume.Sauthier@objectweb.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi guys
> >>
> >>We want to integrate Scout in JOnAS as a replacement for the JAXR
> >>Reference Implementation.
> >>With Scout we can get ride of JAXB-RI too (used by JAXR-RI) and use OSS :)
> >>
> >>Scout has been very easily embed in JOnAS as a ResourceAdapter and seems
> >>to work very well, thanks to your hard work: )
> >>
> >>We can see that Scout depends on jUDDI, and jUDDI depends on many
> >>jakarta commons libs.
> >>
> >>Given the JOnAS ClassLoader architecture, the Scout RA (and all
> >>depending libs : scout, juddi, common-*, ...) will be loaded in a
> >>'commons' ClassLoader, this is a top level Loader.
> >>
> >>So, if a user package his/her application/webapp with a lib already
> >>provided by JOnAS (version can differ) there can be a conflict!
> >>
> >>More, if a user want to change the jUDDI (webapp) version, he can't do
> >>that (classes in top level loader are always loaded first) !
> >>
> >>As we want to interfere a minimum with the classes packaged in our
> >>user's application, in order to avoid conflicts, we want to remove the
> >>dependency on jUDDI.
> >>
> >>To do this, we will have to rewrite some kind of RegistryProxy, avoid
> >>the use of jUDDI's handlers and datatypes, ...
> >>We thought to use xmlbeans as a replacement for UDDI datatypes
> >>
> >>I want to know what do you think of this proposal ?
> >>I think it can be useful for geronimo guys too (and for the same
> >>classloader reasons).
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>Guillaume
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Fernando Nasser
> Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
> 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9
> 


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform

Mime
View raw message