Well, actually it does break compliance as the spec says that the > properties should be called: > <configuration-type>.something > > Given that the configuration type is called org.apache.cxf.ws the > property should be called org.apache.cxf.ws.<something> > > Yeah, I understand that. See, I was trying to explore if we could avoid adding the properties which are not specific to a given type, given that we are still in an org.apache.cfx space - it's hard to see any practical negative side-effects...But I'm sorted...
Generally speaking, I agree the compliance has to be a top priority. But even RI can benefit from adding extensions. thanks, Sergey > Cheers, > > David >
