Indeed, it conflicts with what I've done.
Basically, we try to do the same thing (response to an OPTIONS request) but differently:
* you handle this directly in the router
* I handle it in a filter (have a look at the filter example to see how it works)

I think the filter approach is more flexible: you have a default implementation (WSF_CORS_OPTIONS_FILTER) but you can easily create another filter if you have special needs (or don't want to support CORS entirely) and insert it in the filter chain in place of the default filter.
I don't see how you could do it if the response to an OPTIONS request is tied to the router.