https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1148

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

I started this, so now that I'm a committer I can finish it.

However, I'd be grateful for some opinions. Does anyone object to hiding the
message about cxf.xml in conditions where it's not terribly relevant? Can we
decide to do this automatically? Can anyone shed any light on the other
message?

--benson

Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1148

[Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>]

On Mon October 26 2009 8:20:23 am Benson Margulies wrote:
> I started this, so now that I'm a committer I can finish it.
> 
> However, I'd be grateful for some opinions. Does anyone object to hiding
>  the message about cxf.xml in conditions where it's not terribly relevant?
>  Can we decide to do this automatically? 

Honestly, I think the message should be "reversed".   Basically, if we don't 
find a cxf.xml on the classpath, just ignore and continue silently.   If we DO 
find one, put an INFO message of "Using config from ....."

>  Can anyone shed any light on the
>  other message?

Is it still an issue?    At one point, we were seriously mixing up some 
@Resource annotations for the Bus using name="cxf" for some and name="bus" for 
others.     Since we didn't have a bean named "bus", (the name is "cxf" in the 
config) they didn't resolve.   A while ago, I went through and made them all 
name="cxf" where appropriate and removed many of them entirely if possible.   
Thus, that message might not even occur anymore.   

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog