>> > >Having some properties in the CXF space "org.apache.cxf" seems to be > > totally compliant ? Then they can be 'inherited' by cxf.ws, cxf.rs. > > Not entirely sure what you mean here, but a 'reverse domain' name is > used here to avoid overlap between two technologies that are unaware > of each other. Just like in Java Package names. So using just 'cxf.ws' > is a shorter but not entirely compliant. > > Well, I just was lazy typing 'org.apache'. Basically what I meant was that using a property such as 'org.apache.cxf.something' when configuring the service (soap/rest) using does not seem like breaking the compliance rules
> >> I do agree on matching up the properties where this makes sense across > >> org.apache.cxf.ws and org.apache.cxf.rs > >> > >> So how would you rename a property like "org.apache.cxf.ws.port" ? > > org.apache.cxf.rs.port > > That was my concern after all.., was hoping we could stop the duplication... At the same time perhaps it's not a big issue in the end of the day, as I mentioned, the number of new properties which will have to be duplicated which can be added in addition to those which we already have is very limited Sergey David >
