> On May 31, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hmm, wouldn't a jaxws factory be a good replacement. So plan would be
I’d prefer not as then you’d have a different programming model for jax-ws built in features (MTOMFeature, AddressingFeature) and CXF provided features. And of course there is the “it would break everyone’s existing code” issue. Having the JAX-WS versions wrapper/delegate to the native versions would be fine and should be mostly seamless. For the most part, there aren’t any protected fields or anything that subclasses would be using so it should work. Dan > 1. deprecate current impl > 2. replace them by CxfFeature native implementations (+ delegation for 1) > 3. provide a WSFeature.convert(cxfFeature) factory, also cxf can surely > wrap them automatically in its impl. > > wdyt? > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/ <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/>> | Old > Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>> | > Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau <https://github.com/rmannibucau>> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>> > > > Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 17:00, Daniel Kulp <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > >> >> >>> On May 31, 2019, at 10:54 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Was not thinking to drop it from the parent but more to get soap free >>> flavors of cxf features which would then be usable in jaxrs apps without >>> any issue. >>> In other words we would get a cxf.AbstractCxfFeature used as base for all >>> impl and current existing ones would be deprecated and would delegate to >>> the new ones. No backward compat issue I think. >> >> We cannot deprecate them as they would still be required for JAX-WS >> users. We then have extra naming issues which can be confusing. >> “LoggingFeature” is the jax-ws one, what is the non-jax-ws one called? >> Maybe prefix them all with CXF like “CXFLoggingFeature”. >> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Kulp >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> - http://dankulp.com/blog >> <http://dankulp.com/blog> < >> http://dankulp.com/blog <http://dankulp.com/blog>> >> Talend Community Coder - http://talend.com <http://talend.com/> >> <http://coders.talend.com/ <http://coders.talend.com/>> -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> - http://dankulp.com/blog <http://dankulp.com/blog> Talend Community Coder - http://talend.com <http://coders.talend.com/>
