You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@cxf.apache.org by "Aki Yoshida (Created) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2011/12/12 10:42:35 UTC
[jira] [Created] (CXF-3975) Consolidate ws-rm configuration schema
for spring and blueprint
Consolidate ws-rm configuration schema for spring and blueprint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Key: CXF-3975
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3975
Project: CXF
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: WS-* Components
Affects Versions: 2.4.4, 2.5
Reporter: Aki Yoshida
Assignee: Aki Yoshida
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 2.4.5, 2.5.1
Two almost identical configuration schemas (for spring and blueprint) are currently used in the WS-RM component, as there are some XML attributes that are specific to one or the other variant. The use of two schemas is associated with an increased cost in maintaining those schemas as well as for WS-RM in particular, a significant overhead in providing a straightforward configuration while reusing the jaxb based configuration classes for both variants.
As defining the configuration schema for CXF's WS-RM component is on our hand and we can define a single schema having the union of those attributes so that it can be used by both types of configuration.
The advantage of this unification is simplicity in the implementation code as well as in the configuration. There is one schema and one namespace to maintain for both spring and blueprint configurations.
The drawback is a weakened syntax validation that could be avoided when two tailored schemas are used for validation. However, there is typically always some gap between semantically valid and only syntactically valid. And such divergence can be documented in the schema and in the documentation to fill this gap.
Some additional information is at the dev@cxf archive
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/thought-on-spring-and-blueprint-configuration-schemas-tt5052010.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Resolved] (CXF-3975) Consolidate ws-rm configuration schema
for spring and blueprint
Posted by "Daniel Kulp (Resolved) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3975?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Daniel Kulp resolved CXF-3975.
------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
> Consolidate ws-rm configuration schema for spring and blueprint
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-3975
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3975
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: WS-* Components
> Affects Versions: 2.5, 2.4.4
> Reporter: Aki Yoshida
> Assignee: Aki Yoshida
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.4.5, 2.5.1
>
>
> Two almost identical configuration schemas (for spring and blueprint) are currently used in the WS-RM component, as there are some XML attributes that are specific to one or the other variant. The use of two schemas is associated with an increased cost in maintaining those schemas as well as for WS-RM in particular, a significant overhead in providing a straightforward configuration while reusing the jaxb based configuration classes for both variants.
> As defining the configuration schema for CXF's WS-RM component is on our hand and we can define a single schema having the union of those attributes so that it can be used by both types of configuration.
> The advantage of this unification is simplicity in the implementation code as well as in the configuration. There is one schema and one namespace to maintain for both spring and blueprint configurations.
> The drawback is a weakened syntax validation that could be avoided when two tailored schemas are used for validation. However, there is typically always some gap between semantically valid and only syntactically valid. And such divergence can be documented in the schema and in the documentation to fill this gap.
> Some additional information is at the dev@cxf archive
> http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/thought-on-spring-and-blueprint-configuration-schemas-tt5052010.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira