Yes, if the configuration type was called org.apache.cxf then the configuration for it is allowed to be called org.apache.cxf.something.
I guess I'm wondering whether this is worth the effort though. Originally the configuration type was called 'pojo'. When we moved to org.apache.cxf.ws we made sure 'pojo' continued to work as backward-compatibility measure in case people were using it. I think if we move to org.apache.cxf instead of org.apache.cxf.ws we should again keep backward compatibility, which in itself means a lot of duplication... Cheers, David On 4 June 2010 13:26, Julien Vey <julien....@bull.net> wrote: > Le 04/06/2010 14:20, Sergey Beryozkin a écrit : >> >> Well, actually it does break compliance as the spec says that the >> >> >>> >>> properties should be called: >>> <configuration-type>.something >>> >>> Given that the configuration type is called org.apache.cxf.ws the >>> property should be called org.apache.cxf.ws.<something> >>> >>> Yeah, I understand that. See, I was trying to explore if we could avoid >>> >> >> adding the properties which are not specific to a given type, given that >> we >> are still in an org.apache.cfx space - it's hard to see any practical >> negative side-effects...But I'm sorted... >> >> Generally speaking, I agree the compliance has to be a top priority. But >> even RI can benefit from adding extensions. >> >> thanks, Sergey >> > > Isn't it possible to call the configuration-type org.apache.cxf > and then add a property such as "org.apache.cxf.type = rs | ws" > > So it would be possible to have properties org.apache.cxf.port, > org.apache.cxf.address which wouldn't break compliance > > Cheers, > > Julien >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> David >>> >>> >> >> > >
