juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anil Saldhana <anilsaldh...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Scout and jUDDI
Date Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:07:01 GMT
A good step would be for Guillaume to submit his work
involving JCA as a contribution to Apache so that we
can use it in Apache Scout. Then the customer will
have the choice of plug and play.

--- Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:

> Guillaume,
> 
> If you sign up for the additional work :) then you
> can have it :) :)
> Seriously, am looking forward to improving both
> projects AND looking
> forward to more participation from redhat and
> objectweb.
> 
> -- dims
> 
> 
> On 8/18/05, Steve Viens <sviens@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Initially we developed Scout on top of jUDDI in
> order to quickly produce a
> > type 0 JAXR provider.  Type 0 (zero) providers
> support accessing UDDI
> > registries only.  The goal however is for Scout to
> become a type 1 provider
> > which would include support for both UDDI and
> ebXML registries.  
> >   
> > As you would probably expect, there are no plans
> for jUDDI to support ebXML.
> >  If a move to an XMLBeans would enable Scout to
> support both UDDI and ebXML
> > (a type 1 provider) then I'm in favor of a move to
> XMLBeans and eliminating
> > Scout's dependency on jUDDI. 
> >   
> > Steve
> >  
> >   
> > On 8/18/05, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>
> wrote: 
> > > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > > Fernando,
> > > >
> > > > Please include everyone's view point. If
> people who use juddi want to 
> > > > use scout they should not have to include
> xmlbeans jars (EXACTLY the
> > > > way you don't want to use juddi jars). So best
> case scenario here is
> > > > to have a pluggable way in scout to do either
> xmlbeans or juddi types. 
> > > > No one is going to complain that way. Please
> let me know if this is ok
> > > > for you.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > It actually seems that the types used by jUDDI
> are unrelated (i.e. they
> > > should be) to the ones used by Scout (except for
> some JARX types to UDDI 
> > > or ebXML mapping defined by the JAXR spec).
> > > 
> > > Scout and jUDDI should only communicate using
> SOAP messages and be
> > > completely independent code-wise.
> > > 
> > > So jUDDI can continue to use its own types (UDDI
> types?) and Scout can 
> > > switch to the more independent XMLBeans, as it
> should not be using any
> > > UDDI or ebXML type internally.
> > > 
> > > Does that make sense?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -- dims
> > > >
> > > > On 8/18/05, Fernando Nasser <
> fnasser@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Hi Anil,
> > > >>
> > > >>Anil Saldhana wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>Scout 0.5 release will be done the way it is.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>0.5 ?
> > > >>
> > > >>But your trunk/etc/project.xml already says
> > > >>
> > > >><currentVersion>1.0-SNAPSHOT</currentVersion>
> > > >>
> > > >>As a result Apache Geronimo and ObjectWeb
> JOnAS, as well as Red Hat 
> > > >>RHAPS and the JPackage.org RPM of Scout have
> all been labeled
> > > >>1.0-SNAPSHOT (+date).
> > > >>
> > > >>Going back to anything less then 1.0 now will
> break everybody's
> > > >>dependency checks. 
> > > >>
> > > >>Can't you continue to use 1.0-SNAPSHOT until
> you are ready for 1.0?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Once we add the asynchronous feature 
> required by the
> > > >>>JAXR 1.0 spec, we will do the Scout 1.0
> release.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Before we do the 1.0 release, we can see if
> there is
> > > >>>really any major incentive in removing the
> juddi data
> > > >>>types and bringing in XMLBeans.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>
> > > >>A major incentive: not bringing the juddi jar
> into the classloader space
> > > >>of anyone who wants to use Scout, perhaps even
> with some other Directory
> > > >>service different from jUDDI. 
> > > >>
> > > >>I was talking to Guillaume on irc and we think
> that a complete
> > > >>separation between Scout and jUDDI would be
> ideal.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>At Scout and jUDDI, we have always fostered
> pluggable 
> > > >>>deployments.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>But in this specific case, there doesn't seem
> to be any advantage at all
> > > >>in providing pluggable _internal_ types.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 
> > > >>>Using juddi data types is an internal
> implementation
> > > >>>detail of Scout.  So there are no issues with
> using
> > > >>>XMLBeans as an internal implementation
> detail. But we
> > > >>>need to investigate and test. 
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>Right.  We would be willing to help changing
> the types if everyone is in
> > > >>accordance with that.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>I will have to look at XMLBeans a bit
> further. 
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>Thank you.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Best regards,
> > > >>Fernando
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>--- Fernando Nasser < fnasser@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>Fernando,
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>>then folks who primarily use juddi and want
> to use
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>scout on the client
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>will have one less library to deal with :) 
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Are you saying that you agree with using
> XMLBeans
> > > >>>>and dropping the jUDDI
> > > >>>>types (on both sides, Scout and jUDDI of
> course)? 
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>-- dims
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>On 8/17/05, Fernando Nasser <
> fnasser@redhat.com>
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message