ws-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Wiedmann <>
Subject Re: [WODEN] Future of Woden Axiom implementation ?
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:45:38 GMT
Question: Are there any ongoing developments: If not, I'd say we leave
the code and avoid annoying potential users.

Otherwise: If we might save work ourselves, drop it. (Don't forget to
increment the major version number and possibly change Maven GID and
package to indicate incompatible changes.)

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Sagara Gunathunga
<> wrote:
> Hi Devs,
> I'm thinking about future of Axiom (OM) based implementation of Woden
> API for sometime, whether we should continue or drop support from next
> release ?
> AFAIK original objective of OM implementation is to support Axis2 but
> in fact Axis2 never used OM implementation instead Axis2 still use DOM
> based implementation. Also in my POV there is no such drawbacks with
> DOM implementation to move Axis2 to use OM implementation. At the
> moment there is no clear indication about users of OM implementation
> too.  In this situation it is kind of a overhead to maintain OM
> implementation further specially with small number of developers.  At
> the beginning Woden had plans for number of cool features such as
> supporting to both WSDL versions etc, but all original developers have
> been disappeared from the community few years ago hence it's seem OK
> to re-prioritize objectives based on current requirements and
> resources.
> This also important decision to reduce complexities among Woden
> artifacts, at the moment it's required  to have at least 3 JAR files
> to use Woden framework as woden-api, woden-impl-common  and
> woden-impl-dom/woden-impl-om. Dropping OM implementation allows  to
> merge these artifacts and deliver above 3 module as a single JAR file
> called woden.jar.  IMO this kind of single artifact deliverables are
> more natural for utility projects and easy to deploy on OGSI
> containers too.
> Personally I don't have energy to maintain both implementations, also
> without actual users  no point to maintain OM implementation further.
> Based on above facts I would like to suggest terminate OM support from
> next release and move forward the project with what ever the useful
> features.
> Any thoughts ?
> Thanks !
> --
> Sagara Gunathunga
> Blog      -
> Web      -
> LinkedIn -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

In other words: what could be seen as a socially debilitating failure
of character can certainly work to your advantage too. (Linus
Torvalds, but the use in the signature tells something about me as

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message