cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <>
Subject Re: CXF-DOSGi passing the OSGi Remote Services and Remote Service Admin CT
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:20:10 GMT
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 the
> property should be called<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

> Cheers,
> David

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