Details
-
Improvement
-
Status: Closed
-
Minor
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
2.5, 2.4.4
-
None
-
Unknown
Description
Two almost identical configuration schemas (for spring and blueprint) are currently used in the WS-RM component, as there are some XML attributes that are specific to one or the other variant. The use of two schemas is associated with an increased cost in maintaining those schemas as well as for WS-RM in particular, a significant overhead in providing a straightforward configuration while reusing the jaxb based configuration classes for both variants.
As defining the configuration schema for CXF's WS-RM component is on our hand and we can define a single schema having the union of those attributes so that it can be used by both types of configuration.
The advantage of this unification is simplicity in the implementation code as well as in the configuration. There is one schema and one namespace to maintain for both spring and blueprint configurations.
The drawback is a weakened syntax validation that could be avoided when two tailored schemas are used for validation. However, there is typically always some gap between semantically valid and only syntactically valid. And such divergence can be documented in the schema and in the documentation to fill this gap.
Some additional information is at the dev@cxf archive
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/thought-on-spring-and-blueprint-configuration-schemas-tt5052010.html