>i dislike xml configuration files, so i would vote for an Annotation.Yeah, I agree and we are avoiding any xml right now.So, how about we provide some hopefully good defaults for CORS and then users can provide there own @Producer. We will provide at builder api to create the config instance so it won't be a lot of work for users.Should CORS be enabled by default?
On 13 November 2012 13:35, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com> wrote:On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:18 AM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius@gmail.com> wrote:I'm working on adding CORS support there are several things that can be configured in this case. Below is an example of the options that are currently available:public interface CorsConfiguration {
public abstract boolean isCorsSupportEnabled();
public abstract boolean exposeHeaders();
public abstract String getExposeHeaders();
public abstract boolean anyOrigin();
public abstract boolean allowCookies();
public abstract boolean hasMaxAge();
public abstract long getMaxAge();
public abstract Set<String> getValidRequestMethods();
public abstract Set<String> getValidRequestHeaders();
}
How do we want users to configure these configuration options? Using a CDI annotation with "sensible" default values or specify them in web.xml?
i dislike xml configuration files, so i would vote for an Annotation. but thats personal preference_______________________________________________cheers,
/Dan
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev