Makes sense. +1. Regards JB
On Oct 29, 2017, 08:44, at 08:44, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >+1 to align both, makes way more sense for end users IMHO > >Le 29 oct. 2017 02:53, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit >: > >> Hey guys >> >> Earlier today I was looking at an issue noted where proxies created >for CXF >> weren't leveraging JAX-RS Features registered as providers. >> >> After digging into it further, I noticed that it was likely also true >that >> they're not supported for WebClient. It seems like the key piece >missing >> is that all of the support is within ConfigurationImpl, but these two >> stacks are using JAXRSClientFactoryBean as the underlying >configuration. >> >> So I'm wondering, what makes more sense? Porting a Configuration >object to >> be used within the proxy builder, or porting support for features >directly >> into JAXRSClientFactoryBean. It does seem like there's a strong >divide, >> ConfigurationImpl classes are using JAX-RS Features, >> but JAXRSClientFactoryBean classes are using the CXF native Features. >> >> John >>
