cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Status of simple front end
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:08:51 GMT
OK, then, you guys might rise to the bait I offered on the subject of
renaming the classes to actually have 'Simple' in their names :p)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Glen Mazza <glen.mazza@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Basically, fence-sitting.  I can definitely see how its removal would be
> one
> less moving part to maintain, and it would also nicely simplify CXF's
> documentation, and provide less confusion for users.  CXF has grown a
> lot--now REST, JMS, WS-Security--and some trimming of its branches (i.e.,
> becoming leaner and meaner) by removing the simple front end could have
> been
> helpful for the project.  But I needed more input from other committers to
> be dislodged from my passionate 0 vote.  Dan provided it here.
>
> Glen
>
>
> Benson Margulies-4 wrote:
> >
> > Glen,
> >
> > I am somewhat puzzled by your position. You put a lot of work into
> > explaining CXF to people. The existence of the simple front end is one
> > more
> > thing to explain. I just fielded a JIRA from someone who had managed to
> > combine classes from the simple and JAX-WS front end into a giant
> pretzel.
> > So, I could understand your being -1 due to seeing value in thing, or +1
> > in
> > wanting to make CXF easier to explain, but that giant zero feels like a
> > giant question-mark burning on my lawn.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on your passionate non-attachment, or would that
> > transgress your lack of a position?
> >
> > --benson
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Status-of-simple-front-end-tp19785030p19788442.html
> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message