cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <>
Subject Re: JMS transport strongly depends on Spring
Date Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:08:08 GMT

Sergey Beryozkin-5 wrote:
> Let me put it the other way. I haven't started this thread to complain
> about
> Spring, or start any debate about the use of Spring. What I'd like to
> convey
> is that IMHO it is in the interests of CXF to ensure that those
> integrators
> who prefer to provide non-Spring deployments can do it as easily as
> possible. 

Yes, but be careful.  When you say "non-Spring deployment", you are really
saying "non-standardized framework deployment", because to generalize your
concern, you are trying to satisfy a user who does not want *any* external
framework libraries to be used within CXF.  As I was trying to imply with
Banana, once you switch to that framework the user is going to want us to
get rid of that as well, so I think it would be better to generalize your
scenario to that of a user who wants us to roll our own framework (i.e.,
like Metro) rather than rely on one that well tested and understood by a
multitude of developers.

I would certainly agree with disconnecting from Spring (indeed any external
library) where the JDK already offers equivalent OOTB functionality, or
where it just takes a few lines of code to separate from the third party
library.  But I would careful about reinventing the wheel and duplicating
significant amounts of code internally just so we can say that we're
Spring-free.  A strong case can be made for code reuse and relying on
frameworks rather than having each project invent and maintain its own--and
for everyone happy that we've moved from org.springframework.* to org.cxf.*,
several more would be concerned about our move to a lesser-used and -tested
internal framework.


View this message in context:
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at

View raw message