Hi Kohsuke,
On 8/11/06, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi_at_sun.com> wrote:
> Franz Fehringer wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Are there any current activities for enabling JAXB2 support in Maven2?
> > In http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/javax/xml/ there are jaxb-api jaxb-impl
> > jaxb-xjc, but they still contain only 2.0EA3.
> > Since 17. of july there is an additional subdirectory bind, but there
> > are several things wrong/missing with this:
>
> We arranged a mirroring from java.net repo to the maven repo, so that's
Would it be possible/wise to arrange mirroring maven2-repo"java.net ?
> why we started seeing jars in ibiblio.
>
> > * jaxb-impl and jaxb-xjc are missing.
>
> They are there: http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/com/sun/xml/bind/
>
> > * version is 2.0; 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 have appeared in the meantime.
>
> Yeah, I have to ask them why those new jars are not mirrored.
>
> > * it has been mentioned on this list, that the location
> > javax/xml/bind is wrong, javax/xml is the correct one.
>
> I really think it should be javax/xml/bind. There's no single group that
> is in charge of "javax.xml" packge at JCP. It's individual JSRs that
> own individual packages like "javax.xml.bind" and "javax.xml.ws". They
> follow different development models, release cycles, etc. So the group
> name should better reflect that structure.
>
> We kept JAX-RPC API in "javax.xml" to honor the backward compatibility,
> but for new jars, I'm not sure why we need to continue that way. I
> thought the Maven folks are in agreement with this, as you can see in
> http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/javax/xml/bind/
>
> The same can be said with "com.sun.xml", and I can make even stronger
> case here. Sun clearly owns this namespace, and so I thought the group
> in Sun that does "com.sun.xml" stuff gets to choose whatever conventions
> we see fit. Again, it's the same deal with javax.xml here --- there are
> individual groups that work on "com.sun.xml.bind" and
> "com.sun.xml.registry" and so on, and so it made more sense to us for
> each team to own its groupId.
>
> There's also no backward compatibility issue in "com.sun.xml.*", as this
> is the first time we publish any artifacts into these group Ids, unlike
> "javax.xml". So I don't understand why people are objecting to
> "com.sun.xml.bind" group id. What is the problem of this group id?
>
> --
> Kohsuke Kawaguchi
> Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi_at_sun.com
>
>
>