Le 04/06/2010 14:20, Sergey Beryozkin a écrit :
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
Isn't it possible to call the configuration-type org.apache.cxf
and then add a property such as "org.apache.cxf.type = rs | ws"
So it would be possible to have properties org.apache.cxf.port,
org.apache.cxf.address which wouldn't break compliance
Cheers,
Julien
Cheers,
David
