juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Viens <svi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Scout and jUDDI
Date Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:14:37 GMT
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>
> >>>>
> >>>>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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>__________________________________________________
> >>>Do You Yahoo!?
> >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>>http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>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