On Saturday 06 November 2010 4:52:07 pm Robert Liguori wrote: > And the best defined usages for Apache CXF tooling goes to: > > 1) Command line help for each tool
In general, this is the "cannonical" list of options. In CXF, the help for this is generated directly from the XML file that also drives the parsing. Thus, options lists here are the ones it knows about. Each tool has an XML file that drives this. Some examples: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/tools/wsdlto/frontend/jaxws/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/tools/wsdlto/frontend/jaxws/jaxws- toolspec.xml http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/tools/wsdlto/misc/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/tools/misc/*.xml http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/tools/validator/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/tools/validator/wsdlvalidator.xml Etc...... > 2) Online CXF tooling documentation (http://cxf.apache.org/docs/tools.html) Getting the online CXF tooling up to date with the command line options would definitely be a good thing. Dan > 3) FUSE support tooling documentation ( > http://fusesource.com/products/enterprise-cxf/#documentation) > > Yes, I'm just being playful here as the usage documentation is slightly > different for each. And no set is perfect, that is (without errors). > But.. they are all good. > > BTW, I did a quick-look analysis to flag the differences, so you can see > for yourself what the exact differences are. It's all detailed in the > file attached to this Issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3055 > > Note that I personally don't have time to contribute to this, but I do > think that refined, synchronized and more accurate usage definitions would > bring enhanced 'polished' value to the product. > > Thanks, > Robert -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog
