Willem.Jiang wrote > > Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to just rename it in the wiki page as > we still to provide a reference link for the people who want to search for > the Simple Frontend. >
If that's a concern, no problem, I'll happily put in a sentence saying that it used to be the simple frontend, that will allow googlers/searchers to get to the correct Confluence page. I think "No-annotation front end" is what it should have been named all along--a name which indicates its architecture while not commenting poorly on other frontends, especially our specialty of JAX-WS. Renaming to "no-annotation frontend" it is a compromise instead of getting rid of it entirely in CXF 2.7. I don't think we need this front end anymore, it's a distraction for newcomers, an unnecessary fork in the path that ends up harming them when they need to go back to the JAX-WS path where most everyone else is, and (yes) one that keeps badmouthing our default JAX-WS front end. Renaming it gets rid of the last problem at least, and much more easily allows us to retain this front end indefinitely without it doing any damage to the rest of CXF. Willem.Jiang wrote > > I think we could explain about the "Simple Frontend" in the 5 min > tutorial, and add a entry in FAQ to tell people it is not Simple when you > use the "Simple Frontend". I think it could be easy for us to rename the > "Simple Frontend" in CXF 3.0 if we really want to do it. As we could > create CXFDOC3 for people to use. > We've already had a warning by Benson at the very top of the documentation since October 2010 (which is the last time it's been touched) to avoid using it: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CXF20DOC/Simple+Frontend The only other page about the simple front end hasn't been altered since November 2008: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CXF20DOC/Simple+Frontend+Configuration If the last updates are any indication, the simple front end isn't changing much, and I'd don't see it worth maintaining two whole branches of CXF documentation over, or delaying a name change until CXF 3.0. Besides, the longer we go without renaming it, I think the team inclination is going to move from "renaming it" to "getting rid of it entirely", in order to avoid the problems mentioned above with its current name. Glen -- View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Rename-Simple-Frontend-No-Annotation-Frontend-tp5713384p5713403.html Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
