On Friday, January 27, 2012 1:02:11 PM Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Hi > > It is time to return to this thread with more modules being and about to > be added to the trunk > > On 20/09/11 12:07, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > > Hi > > > > What do you think of dropping a couple of modules for 2.5: > > > > - both rt-bindings-local and rt-bindings-object seem to do the same > > thing, I recall there were some interesting discussions around these two > > modules awhile back :-), but today I guess it's more important which > > module we actually encourage users to use. If it is rt-bindings-local > > then lets drop rt-bindings-object or the other way around > > Can I hack either of those modules on the trunk only, the users > definitely use the collocated support, the question is, do we have an > indication of which module is actually used or both of them can be used ? > If it is the latter, can users migrate to the which will be kept in 2.6 > (assuming of course that one module is removed) without any major problems ?
I assume you mean rt-transport-local, not binding-local... The two of those really have different use cases right now and it would be a significant amount of work to get the uses cases for one to be met by the other. I'm OK with doing that, but I'm warning that it will be a lot of work. There isn't really a way to get rid of rt-transport-local. It has a specific use case of allowing FULL CXF feature sets, but without opening ports or anything. We use it in our tests all over the place. Basically, it allows things like policy and security and gzip and everything to work exactly like if it was an HTTP connect, just in-vm. (that said, I think the performance of local is actually less than http) The issue is between binding-object and binding-coloc. Most likely, binding-coloc could be re-written in terms of binding-object or vice versa, but I've never really dug into them. > > - cxf-rt-bindings-http - dropping it for 2.5 would encourage existing > > users to finalize their migration to JAX-RS > > I'm poised to remove it on the trunk only, we got one +1 from Eric, any > concerns about deleting it ? No concerns for 2.6. Go for it. Dan > > Cheers, Sergey > > > I guess we can continue keeping the above modules, was just thinking if > > we could compensate somehow the fact that the new modules are being > > added, with more to come... > > > > Sergey -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
