cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julien Vey <Julien....@bull.net>
Subject Re: CXF-DOSGi passing the OSGi Remote Services and Remote Service Admin CT
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:26:35 GMT
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
>>
>>      
>    


Mime
View raw message