Yes it makes sense, but I don't think it addresses the concern that I
expressed in my email, to wit, that we are kowtowing to XML, as the
least common denominator for programmatic configuration of behavior.
Again, UNLESS you can safely put POJOs on schema-generated types.
If we can get around that obstacle (and I really do think it's an
obstacle -- not just a "nice to have"), then I'd be happier with the
approach.
-Fred
On Apr 20, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
With the WSFeature scenario you would first write your WSFeature
bean. This
could have various properties (keystores, policies, schema
generated config
types, other beans, etc). To enable nice XML you would have to write a
Spring namespace handler (or preferrably use a default one that
does the
mapping automagically for you). Otherwise you can fall back to the
<bean>
based approach. You could also use the WSFeature easily via the API
with
Server/clientfactorybeans. (This could potentially be easy with ws-
policy as
well. I'm not sure if this is just missing at the moment or I
haven't seen
it yet)
Does that make sense?
