cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename "Simple Frontend" --> "No-Annotation Frontend"?
Date Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:31:52 GMT

Willem.Jiang wrote
> Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to just rename it in the wiki page as
> we still to provide a reference link for the people who want to search for
> the Simple Frontend.

If that's a concern, no problem, I'll happily put in a sentence saying that
it used to be the simple frontend, that will allow googlers/searchers to get
to the correct Confluence page.  I think "No-annotation front end" is what
it should have been named all along--a name which indicates its architecture
while not commenting poorly on other frontends, especially our specialty of

Renaming to "no-annotation frontend" it is a compromise instead of getting
rid of it entirely in CXF 2.7.  I don't think we need this front end
anymore, it's a distraction for newcomers, an unnecessary fork in the path
that ends up harming them when they need to go back to the JAX-WS path where
most everyone else is, and (yes) one that keeps badmouthing our default
JAX-WS front end.  Renaming it gets rid of the last problem at least, and
much more easily allows us to retain this front end indefinitely without it
doing any damage to the rest of CXF.

Willem.Jiang wrote
> I think we could explain about the "Simple Frontend" in the 5 min
> tutorial, and add a entry in FAQ to tell people it is not Simple when you
> use the "Simple Frontend".  I think it could be easy for us to rename the
> "Simple Frontend" in CXF 3.0 if we really want to do it. As we could
> create CXFDOC3 for people to use.

We've already had a warning by Benson at the very top of the documentation
since October 2010 (which is the last time it's been touched) to avoid using

The only other page about the simple front end hasn't been altered since
November 2008:

If the last updates are any indication, the simple front end isn't changing
much, and I'd don't see it worth maintaining two whole branches of CXF
documentation over, or delaying a name change until CXF 3.0.  Besides, the
longer we go without renaming it, I think the team inclination is going to
move from "renaming it" to "getting rid of it entirely", in order to avoid
the problems mentioned above with its current name.


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

View raw message