13 Replies Latest reply on Feb 4, 2008 11:18 AM by ropalka

    JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?

    thomas.diesler

      Folks,

      we are about to release jbossws-2.0.3.GA on 1-Feb-2008. So far we communicated that jbossws-2.1 will come with plugablility for Metro and CXF and the release criteria was that all three stacks pass a common jax-ws testsuite that is defined in our framework module.

       The JBossWS project is organised like this
      
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~+
       Target Container: | AS-5.0 | | AS-4.2 | | AS-4.0 | | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       Container Integration: | jbossws-jboss50 | | jbossws-jboss42 | | jbossws-jboss40 | | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       WS Framework: | jbossws-spi, jbossws-framework, jbossws-common | | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       WS Stack Integration: | jbossws-native | | jbossws-metro | | jbossws-cxf | | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       WS Stack: | jbossws-core | | Sun Metro | | Apache CXF | | |
       +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | |
       WS-* Extensions: +~+ +~+ +~+ +~+ +~+ +~+ | |
       | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
       | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
       | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
       | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
       | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
       +~+ +~+ +~+ +~+ +~+ +~+ +~~~~+
       JAXWS Testsuite
      


      For both stacks Metro and CXF the testsuite passes except a few minor issues that we currently cannot make progress because of some cooperation details with Sun/Apache that would need to be resolved.

      In short, I would like to release jbossws-2.1 (maybe called jbossws-3.0) for JBossWorld and announce that we have pluggable stacks available for public consumption.

      What I am not sure about however is the versioning scheme of our upcomming releases. The version number appears in

      * Download file (i.e. jbossws-native-2.0.2.GA)
      * JIRA version (i.e. roadmap, changelog)
      * SVN tag
      * Binary repository

      All of the above follow the same version scheme.

      Given that all stacks have an independent live cycle and are essentially standalone projects (as reflected in our SVN structure) I find it difficult to come up with an adequate versioning scheme

      * jbossws-native-2.1.0
      * jbossws-metro-2.1.0
      * jbossws-cxf-2.1.0
      


      poses the question where is jbossws-metro-1.0.0. Also eight weeks later we might not have changes in all three stacks - do we redundantly release all three stacks or only the stacks that have actually changed?

      * jbossws-native-2.0.3
      * jbossws-metro-1.0.0
      * jbossws-cxf-1.0.0
      


      Misses the point that a new area (pluggable stacks) has begun and it would make little sense to talk about jbossws-2.1 if there is no download and no jira roadmap for it.

      * jbossws-2.1.0-native-2.0.3
      * jbossws-2.1.0-metro-1.0.0
      * jbossws-2.1.0-cxf-1.0.0
      


      Is another possibility that would transport the idea of a fast moving jbossws framework project (8 week release cycle) with independent release cycles for the containing stacks.

      Generally, I would like to stick to the jbossws brand with a single version, which would get lost if we talk about three independent projects.

      I am interested to hear your feedback

      cheers



        • 1. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
          dimitris

          I like the verbose approach, i.e.

          * jbossws-2.1.0-native-2.0.3
          * jbossws-2.1.0-metro-1.0.0
          * jbossws-2.1.0-cxf-1.0.0

          • 2. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
            thomas.diesler

            ... and if only native changes we would have redundant releases?

            * jbossws-2.1.1-native-2.0.4
            * jbossws-2.1.1-metro-1.0.0
            * jbossws-2.1.1-cxf-1.0.0

            • 3. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
              asoldano

              Here are my 2 cents:

              "thomas.diesler@jboss.com" wrote:
              ... and if only native changes we would have redundant releases?

              * jbossws-2.1.1-native-2.0.4
              * jbossws-2.1.1-metro-1.0.0
              * jbossws-2.1.1-cxf-1.0.0


              Not sure if this might be convenient in practice, however what about doing the following way if we choose the verbose option?

              - native only changes

              * jbossws-2.1.0-native-2.0.4
              * jbossws-2.1.0-metro-1.0.0
              * jbossws-2.1.0-cxf-1.0.0
              i.e. we release jbossws-2.1.0-native-2.0.4 only


              - framework/spi/common only changes

              * jbossws-2.1.1-native-2.0.3
              * jbossws-2.1.1-metro-1.0.0
              * jbossws-2.1.1-cxf-1.0.0
              i.e. we release all, without changing the stack release number


              - framework/spi/common changes + native changes

              * jbossws-2.1.1-native-2.0.4
              * jbossws-2.1.1-metro-1.0.0
              * jbossws-2.1.1-cxf-1.0.0
              i.e. we release all, also changing the native stack release number

              • 4. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                thomas.diesler

                Mark sais:


                Nice work. I would call it 3.0 to be honest: it's a significant difference over the previous release IMO.

                Mark.


                • 5. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                  burrsutter

                  I agree. Such innovation & advancement deserves more than a minor release number! :-)

                  Question: if an end-user wishes to use the CXF flavor of JBossWS, is it 100% compatible with my current JAX-RPC & JAX-WS web services running in their current AS? No changes required, just a drop in replacement?

                  "2.1.1" suggests that is the case.

                  And fantastic stuff from a great community driven team!

                  • 6. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                    ropalka

                     

                    "thomas.diesler@jboss.com" wrote:
                    ... and if only native changes we would have redundant releases?

                    * jbossws-2.1.1-native-2.0.4
                    * jbossws-2.1.1-metro-1.0.0
                    * jbossws-2.1.1-cxf-1.0.0


                    I wouldn't call it redundant release. AFAIK each JBossWS release gets tested on at least one new tagged branch (trunk) and according to informatics axiom What is not tested it doesn't work it's always better to test and release it although it seems like redundant release. But in fact it isn't.

                    • 7. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                      ropalka

                       

                      "richard.opalka@jboss.com" wrote:
                      AFAIK each JBossWS release gets tested on at least one new tagged branch (trunk)


                      Just for clarification I meant new AS tagged branch (trunk)

                      • 8. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                        ropalka

                         

                        "dimitris@jboss.org" wrote:
                        I like the verbose approach, i.e.

                        * jbossws-2.1.0-native-2.0.3
                        * jbossws-2.1.0-metro-1.0.0
                        * jbossws-2.1.0-cxf-1.0.0


                        Me too

                        • 9. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                          ropalka

                           


                          Nice work. I would call it 3.0 to be honest: it's a significant difference over the previous release IMO.

                          Mark.


                          +1

                          • 10. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                            ropalka

                             

                            "thomas.diesler@jboss.com" wrote:

                            Is another possibility that would transport the idea of a fast moving jbossws framework project (8 week release cycle) with independent release cycles for the containing stacks.

                            I wouldn't do that. Let us try release all three stacks support simultaneously. We'll see how time expensive it will be and later we can do other strategic decisions.
                            "thomas.diesler@jboss.com" wrote:

                            I would like to stick to the jbossws brand with a single version

                            +1


                            • 11. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                              thomas.diesler

                               


                              Question: if an end-user wishes to use the CXF flavor of JBossWS, is it 100% compatible with my current JAX-RPC & JAX-WS web services running in their current AS? No changes required, just a drop in replacement?


                              No, neither CXF nor Metro support JAX-RPC. You can expect JAX-WS functionality that is covered by the jbossws framework testsuite (except documented errata in the release notes) to work.

                              Also please note, that only jbossws-native is verified against the TCK. This is also the the only stack that is officially supported for customers.

                              What we are introducing here is a community release only that is not available in any of the platforms. A switch to either CXF or Metro as our default platform stack is possible in the future, but will require more work not only from a tech perspective.


                              • 12. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                                heiko.braun

                                I would just regard the prefix as branding. As thomas said, it's a new era.
                                Therefore I would opt for jbossws-wsf-XYZ. WSF (web service framework) is something we included in the brand when we started the SPI. It's reflected in the package names as well.

                                * jbossws-wsf-native-2.0.3
                                * jbossws-wsf-metro-1.0.0
                                * jbossws-wsf-cxf-1.0.0
                                


                                Changes to SPI, framework, etc would trigger new releases of each stack anyway, right? I am looking at this from a users point of view. The prefix versioning just confuses people. "Did they release a new metro version?" This is what I would ask myself. Regardless if that was causing changes to the SPI or the framework. If any fix requires changes to the SPI, all stacks need to update anyway.

                                So I'd say we release by a rule of thumb:

                                - Any change to the SPI, framework requires an update to each stack
                                - At least each stack needs to be run through QA
                                - QA means a tagged framework version and thus an update to the stack (version.properties)

                                In this case I don't see the need for a confusing prefix versioning like 'jbossws-3.0-XYZ'.

                                Does this make sense to you guys?



                                • 13. Re: JBossWS brings Metro/CXF but in what version?
                                  ropalka

                                   

                                  "heiko.braun@jboss.com" wrote:
                                  Does this make sense to you guys?

                                  Yes, it makes perfect sense to me.