But it's better to correct a mistake than live with it. YMMV
Regards,
Rajith
On 10/3/06, Afkham Azeez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shall we go ahead and refactor these classes, or do we learn to live with this mistake? :D
If we are going to do it in the future, now's the best time (before 1.1)
Azeez--On 10/3/06, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:You might wanna look at the names of these classes as well.
RawXMLINOutMessageReceiver, RawXMLINOutAsyncMessageReceiver,
RawXMLINOnlyMessageReceiver
See how In and Out is written.
But remember, lot of users must have used this name in their
services.xml files :).
-- Chinthaka
Afkham Azeez wrote:
> Hi,
> There are a number of spelling mistakes/convention violations in some of
> the Axis2 API methods.
>
> e.g. public void disEngageModule(QName moduleName);
> Should be disengageModule(QName)
>
> In the axis2.xml the phase orders types named as follows:
>
> <phaseOrder type="inflow">
> <phaseOrder type="outflow">
> <phaseOrder type="INfaultflow">
> <phaseOrder type="Outfaultflow">
>
> As can be seen, no convention has been followed in naming these, and the
> same are used as tagnames in the module.xml files.
> Is it ok if I go ahead and fix these, at this moment? IMHO, we should
> fix these type of inconsistencies before 1.1 and have cleaner APIs &
> configuration files.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Afkham Azeez
Thanks
Afkham Azeez
