You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2008/10/02 20:29:27 UTC
Status of simple front end
Given Dan's message today to a user, I want to toss out the possibility of
deprecating the entire Simple front end.
Re: Status of simple front end
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
OK, then, you guys might rise to the bait I offered on the subject of
renaming the classes to actually have 'Simple' in their names :p)
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Basically, fence-sitting. I can definitely see how its removal would be
> one
> less moving part to maintain, and it would also nicely simplify CXF's
> documentation, and provide less confusion for users. CXF has grown a
> lot--now REST, JMS, WS-Security--and some trimming of its branches (i.e.,
> becoming leaner and meaner) by removing the simple front end could have
> been
> helpful for the project. But I needed more input from other committers to
> be dislodged from my passionate 0 vote. Dan provided it here.
>
> Glen
>
>
> Benson Margulies-4 wrote:
> >
> > Glen,
> >
> > I am somewhat puzzled by your position. You put a lot of work into
> > explaining CXF to people. The existence of the simple front end is one
> > more
> > thing to explain. I just fielded a JIRA from someone who had managed to
> > combine classes from the simple and JAX-WS front end into a giant
> pretzel.
> > So, I could understand your being -1 due to seeing value in thing, or +1
> > in
> > wanting to make CXF easier to explain, but that giant zero feels like a
> > giant question-mark burning on my lawn.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on your passionate non-attachment, or would that
> > transgress your lack of a position?
> >
> > --benson
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Status-of-simple-front-end-tp19785030p19788442.html
> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Status of simple front end
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Basically, fence-sitting. I can definitely see how its removal would be one
less moving part to maintain, and it would also nicely simplify CXF's
documentation, and provide less confusion for users. CXF has grown a
lot--now REST, JMS, WS-Security--and some trimming of its branches (i.e.,
becoming leaner and meaner) by removing the simple front end could have been
helpful for the project. But I needed more input from other committers to
be dislodged from my passionate 0 vote. Dan provided it here.
Glen
Benson Margulies-4 wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
> I am somewhat puzzled by your position. You put a lot of work into
> explaining CXF to people. The existence of the simple front end is one
> more
> thing to explain. I just fielded a JIRA from someone who had managed to
> combine classes from the simple and JAX-WS front end into a giant pretzel.
> So, I could understand your being -1 due to seeing value in thing, or +1
> in
> wanting to make CXF easier to explain, but that giant zero feels like a
> giant question-mark burning on my lawn.
>
> Could you elaborate on your passionate non-attachment, or would that
> transgress your lack of a position?
>
> --benson
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Status-of-simple-front-end-tp19785030p19788442.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Status of simple front end
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Glen,
I am somewhat puzzled by your position. You put a lot of work into
explaining CXF to people. The existence of the simple front end is one more
thing to explain. I just fielded a JIRA from someone who had managed to
combine classes from the simple and JAX-WS front end into a giant pretzel.
So, I could understand your being -1 due to seeing value in thing, or +1 in
wanting to make CXF easier to explain, but that giant zero feels like a
giant question-mark burning on my lawn.
Could you elaborate on your passionate non-attachment, or would that
transgress your lack of a position?
--benson
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm passionately neutral. Few things are more deep-felt than my vote of
> zero
> on this matter.
>
> Glen
>
>
> Benson Margulies-4 wrote:
> >
> > Given Dan's message today to a user, I want to toss out the possibility
> of
> > deprecating the entire Simple front end.
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Status-of-simple-front-end-tp19785030p19786266.html
> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Status of simple front end
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
That's what I call an argument. OK, so much for that.
Should we try to make Simple quietly respect @WebParam and friends?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Well, given that the entire distributed OSGi stuff is based on the Simple
> frontend + aegis (since OSGi services probably don't have jaxws
> annotations on them), I would say that it wouldn't be practical to get
> rid of it. :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
> > Benson Margulies-4 wrote:
> > > Given Dan's message today to a user, I want to toss out the
> > > possibility of deprecating the entire Simple front end.
>
>
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
Re: Status of simple front end
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Well, given that the entire distributed OSGi stuff is based on the Simple
frontend + aegis (since OSGi services probably don't have jaxws
annotations on them), I would say that it wouldn't be practical to get
rid of it. :-)
Dan
> Benson Margulies-4 wrote:
> > Given Dan's message today to a user, I want to toss out the
> > possibility of deprecating the entire Simple front end.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Status of simple front end
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
I'm passionately neutral. Few things are more deep-felt than my vote of zero
on this matter.
Glen
Benson Margulies-4 wrote:
>
> Given Dan's message today to a user, I want to toss out the possibility of
> deprecating the entire Simple front end.
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Status-of-simple-front-end-tp19785030p19786266.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.