JAXP default implementation and JDK-8152063

huizhe wang huizhe.wang at oracle.com
Sat Mar 26 21:57:35 UTC 2016

Going back to the original issue a bit, if you don't mind.

The issue was that JBoss wished to configure its own default providers 
for certain JAXP-defined services. What you've been doing until now was 
to point the system property to a proxy, which, in essence, took over 
the JAXP provider-lookup process, and served as a factory finder outside 
of JAXP.  "however if we do this but there is/are no overriding 
implementation(s) for one or more of these APIs, then AFAICT it will 
fail with Jigsaw because we can't access the JDK's default implementations".

So the question is, why did you have to override the JAXP process for 
the services that you don't have an AppServer-level provider ( 
"overriding implementation(s)" )?


On 3/25/2016 5:53 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> OK, so disappointment again. :)  Thanks for responding; the search 
> continues.
> On 03/24/2016 06:35 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
>> Right, that sounds like what I thought you would want: an additional
>> step in the factory-lookup process to try locating a provider through
>> the Layer of the caller if TCCL fails.  I think the assumption in the
>> previous discussion was that a new method would be introduced to take a
>> Layer as an argument.
>> -Joe
>> On 3/24/2016 3:36 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>> This is all for the case where the user is calling e.g.
>>> javax.xml.stream.XMLInputFactory#newFactory() with no arguments. We
>>> need some way to choose a specific non-JDK default implementation when
>>> there is no service loader info on the TCCL. Using the Layer of the
>>> caller of the newFactory() method would be an ideal solution from our
>>> perspective.
>>> On 03/24/2016 05:18 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
>>>> So specifying Layer is preferred solution. If a new method is needed
>>>> however, (similar situation to using the method with ClassLoader), 
>>>> that
>>>> would mean your users' applications are required to adapt to the new
>>>> API. Would you expect that would happen or would you still have 
>>>> existing
>>>> applications that can not be updated?
>>>> -Joe
>>>> On 3/24/2016 2:02 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>>> On 03/24/2016 03:54 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
>>>>>> In this discussion so far,
>>>>>> a) I see that you seemed to have successfully used the method with a
>>>>>> class loader as Daniel suggested.  I assume that solved the issue
>>>>>> reported in JDK-8152063. Am I right, that you no longer have issue
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> using a proxy? Or
>>>>> No, not solved yet, just in the process of prototyping but ran into a
>>>>> road block with XMLReaderFactory.
>>>>>> b) you do need JAXP's supporting using a Layer as the context in 
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> to solve your issue completely?
>>>>> I think this should be considered the best solution to the problem.
>>>>>> c) On org.xml.sax.helpers.XMLReaderFactory, as Alan and Daniel
>>>>>> said, yes
>>>>>> I'm working with the SAX project to hopefully get a new release out
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> would conform to the ServiceLoader spec.  I'm also suggesting a new
>>>>>> method that takes a ClassLoader that would be useful if (a) worked
>>>>>> for you.
>>>>> We have some more testing to do before I can say whether this 
>>>>> works or
>>>>> does not work.  But either way it is a rather non-optimal solution,
>>>>> and if I can avoid using a proxy layer, I would much prefer to do so.
>>>>> Thanks for your response.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list