> Deepal, > I disagree. It complicates the chain and our configuration files for > no benefit to a large number of users. > I do not agree with you in this , because just we have configurations in axis2.xml people will not get confused and did not make the system complicated. If they do not want they can remove that. > The lack of dynamic phases also requires people to repetitively edit > axis2.xml files when adding something we haven't yet added a phase > for.... I agree that , but deploying module is not that frequent thing like deploying services. So this is just one time cost. > it's really naff from a user perspective, especially given all > the huffing and puffing in articles about how great our module > architecture is. > Yes I agree with you in this , but there should be a limitation of the flexibility we should give. > Can I ask if there's something specific you're worried about wrt > dynamic phases, or if it's just something you don't see a need for? > I dont see need for it , I know it is very cool and I really like to have. However at the this point Axis2 is kind of stable and people are using that for production so we should not break the backward compatibility. Second as I said earlier mail as well none of the user asked for this.
We have lot more to fix and improve in Axis2 (I mean high priority items that users have requested) , so we need to focus on that. My general rule is , if something working fine and no body complain about that , then we do not need to change that. :) -Deepal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
