juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fernando Nasser <fnas...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Scout and jUDDI
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:13:28 GMT
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> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9

Mime
View raw message