+1 .. fixing this will make life easier for a large number of future
users while causing an undue amount of pain to current users who came
early and made Axis2 improve significantly. So .. how about a
compromise; copy the code to the proper name and mark the old one
deprecated. All the samples and docs need to be changed too ..

We need to have a doc on 1.0 -> 1.1 migration ..

Sanjiva.

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 17:08 -0400, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> +1 to fix it, allthough this might break existing applications based
> on Axis2 might break.
> 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
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to