Hi David On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:17 PM, David Bosschaert < [email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> > > - consolidation of DOSGI RI specific properties. Example, you added a > useful > > property called "org.apache.cxf.ws.port" so JAXRS endpoints need to > 'catch > > up' with "org.apache.cxf.rs.port". > > Perhaps we can continue adding such 'parallel' properties, but I'm > > wondering, can "org.apache.cxf.ws.port" > > be replaced with "org.apache.cxf.endpoint.port" or > > "org.apache.cxf.http.port" ? Later on, in post 1.2, we can deprecates > some > > of other 'duplicate' properties. > > >> 3. Anything else? > Well, the Remote Services Admin spec mandates that the configuration > properties follow a certain pattern. If the configuration type is > called org.apache.cxf.ws then its specific configuration variables > should be called org.apache.cxf.ws.something (see table 122.1 in the > OSGi 4.2 Enterprise Spec http://www.osgi.org/Download/Release4V42). > This is to avoid name clashes when you want to expose a service using > multiple Remote Service implementations that may not be aware of each > other. So to be compliant we have to live with parallel properties. > > Having some properties in the CXF space "org.apache.cxf" seems to be totally compliant ? Then they can be 'inherited' by cxf.ws, cxf.rs. > I do agree on matching up the properties where this makes sense across > org.apache.cxf.ws and org.apache.cxf.rs > > So how would you rename a property like "org.apache.cxf.ws.port" ? > > - HTTPS support ? May be a discussion on the dev list can be initiated, > a > > solution agreed upon and then someone from the community can step forward > > and work on it ? As a side note, a CXF user has approached me regarding > > fixing a JAXRS Jettison issue in DOSGI 1.1 (default Jettison provider > does > > not work in DOSGi 1.1, needs to be fixed for 1.2 too) so I think there > are > > experienced and motivated users who can help... > > While I agree that this would be great to have, I'm not sure if we > should wait for it to be finished. I'm not aware of anyone working on > this at the moment (please correct me if I'm wrong!). Months of work > have gone in making CXF-DOSGi compliant with the spec and I don't > think we should hold releasing this off until a nice piece of > functionality which hasn't even been started on has been finished. > There's nothing wrong with releasing often, so if this functionality > appears we can do a release again, unless someone is already working > on HTTPS support of course... > > Sure, it's been a big effort indeed. Perhaps HTTPS can even be implemented 'out of band' by users if needed : http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/SSL+Configuration; future DOSGI releases may support it at the intents level thanks, Sergey > Best regards, > > David >
