On Monday 15 September 2008 6:38:46 pm Benson Margulies wrote: > I am queasy about adding code to CXF that enables, even optionally, > XFire 'bug-for-bug' compatibility. Somehow, it feels like a bad thing > to enable/encourage the deployment of code that purports to conform to > a standard but does not. A service configuration that warps the JAX-WS > behavior, for example. What do other people thing?
Personally, I have to agree with Glen. Having some "migration aids" to help people move from XFire to CXF it definitely important and I think we've done a fairly good job at that. However, strict 100% compatibility shouldn't be a "requirement", IMO. XFire never claimed to be JAX-WS compliant or JSR181 compliant or anything like that. It has known bugs in those areas. Compliance to those specs is very important to CXF and I really don't see the value in re-adding bugs into CXF for the XFire compatibility. That said, if the xfire users wanted to submit patches back to cxf to implement various xfire issues to make migration easier, we should definitely consider accepting those patches (and maybe getting some more committers in the process :-) . I just think we have enough stuff to worry about that it wouldn't be a high priority item for us. -- Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
