Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60174 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2010 12:50:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 4 Jun 2010 12:50:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 53973 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2010 12:50:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 53928 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2010 12:50:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 53920 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2010 12:50:52 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:50:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=10.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [129.183.4.8] (HELO ecfrec.frec.bull.fr) (129.183.4.8) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:50:44 +0000 Received: from cyclope.frec.bull.fr (cyclope.frec.bull.fr [129.183.4.9]) by ecfrec.frec.bull.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4876FE92 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:50:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [129.183.128.80] (frecb015096.frec.bull.fr [129.183.128.80]) by cyclope.frec.bull.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD1227297 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:50:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C08F68C.3000409@bull.net> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:50:20 +0200 From: Julien Vey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cxf.apache.org Subject: Re: CXF-DOSGi passing the OSGi Remote Services and Remote Service Admin CT References: <4C08F0FB.9070209@bull.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Le 04/06/2010 14:32, David Bosschaert a �crit : > 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 wrote: > >> Le 04/06/2010 14:20, Sergey Beryozkin a �crit : >> >>> Well, actually it does break compliance as the spec says that the >>> >>> >>> >>>> properties should be called: >>>> .something >>>> >>>> Given that the configuration type is called org.apache.cxf.ws the >>>> property should be called org.apache.cxf.ws. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >