Le 04/06/2010 14:32, David Bosschaert a écrit :
Yes, if the configuration type was called org.apache.cxf then the
configuration for it is allowed to be called org.apache.cxf.something.
I guess I'm wondering whether this is worth the effort though.
Originally the configuration type was called 'pojo'. When we moved to
org.apache.cxf.ws we made sure 'pojo' continued to work as
backward-compatibility measure in case people were using it. I think
if we move to org.apache.cxf instead of org.apache.cxf.ws we should
again keep backward compatibility, which in itself means a lot of
duplication...
Cheers,
David
Yes I agree
Maybe would it be better to keep it the way it is for now and introduce
this new configuration for a future major release.
Cheers,
Julien
On 4 June 2010 13:26, Julien Vey<julien....@bull.net> wrote:
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
