6856630: Restructure jaxp/jaxws repository

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/10/23 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>   
>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>     
>>> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>>>>           

[big snip]
>> DOH!  Sorry...
>>
>> Yes, these jaxp and jaxws forests can probably go away, we won't
>> be using them.
>>
>> The current plan is that jaxp/jaxws changes (new bundles) will go
>> through the TL forest.
>>
>>
>> -kto
>>
>>     
>
> I'm guilty of also thinking that Jonathan was referring to the jaxws
> and jaxp repositories per forest, rather than the specific forests.
> On that note, i18n could probably die too because apparently that team
> always use the swing forest for commits.
>
> It would be nice to one day get rid of the jaxp and jaxws trees too.
> I don't actually see why they were created as trees to begin with,
> given they've always been upstream and not a source of many commits.
> The one to actual split up would be jdk, as I can feel Mercurial
> struggling with it a bit already on jdk7.  But I don't know how
> feasible that is, if at all.  Maybe Jigsaw will help there.
>
> One thing that does worry me -- what happens when the jaxws or jaxp
> code needs security updates?
>   

Yes, the need to support security fixes was considered as part of this 
new delivery model.  Ultimately a revised source bundle with the 
security fixes will need to be produced.  Until then, the fixes can be 
represented as patches which are applied to the sources before the 
build.  Kelly can speak to the implementation details of the patch 
mechanism.

-Joe