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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > >
