Re: [jboss-as7-dev] Default Configuration Namespace

Thanks Brian. Yeah thinking further I think option 3 would possibly make more sense when the first digit of the schema version is updated, at the moment we are updating the second digit so option 1 is probably sufficient for that. Regards, Darran Lofthouse. On 09/28/2011 04:38 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote: > Go with 1. > > We can always go with 3 later if it proves necessary, but I don't think > the effort is justified at this point. > > On 9/25/11 3:33 PM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >> Working on this issue (AS7-1923) so far the biggest task I see is >> ensuring namespace handling in StandaloneXml.java, DomainXml.java, >> HostXml.java and CommonXml.java >> >> Firstly I think consistency across the files I listed is essential so >> whichever approach we choose I will ensure is implemented across these >> files. >> >> Generally I see these options for handling multiple versions: - >> >> * 1 - Switch statement on version and duplicate parsing. * >> >> Here I would see each readElement type method with a switch on the >> schema version, the attribute and element parsing would then be version >> specific so no further version specific checks would be needed for that >> version. >> >> The biggest disadvantage of this would be duplication of code where >> complex type definitions have only minor changes, where they are >> identical the same code could handle mutliple versions. >> >> The main advantages would be ease for commiters to verify old schema >> parsing not inadvertently updated by a change and easier to map code 1:1 >> to exact schema version. >> >> * 2 - Leave entire implementation based on V1.0 with specific checks for >> updates * >> >> Here everything remains written in terms of version 1.0 but as changes >> are made for subsequent versions we just add version checks at the >> points where updates are made to the schemas e.g. for new elements / >> types or removed types. >> >> This keeps us with the least duplication as the version checks are at >> exactly the points where they are required. >> >> The down side I see here is for longer term maintenance, if you are >> going to work on a bug in existing parsing code you will need to review >> every schema we support to ensure the one block of code is compatible >> with them all. If in the future we wanted to deprecate or remove old >> versions I think this approach could lead to having to re-write all the >> classes I listed to re-base on a new base version and take into account >> the subsequent versions or risk a build up of dead code. >> >> * 3 Duplicate the *Xml.java classes * >> >> When the version of the xsd is switched all parsing will be in terms of >> the new schema so we don't need to support the version switching >> mid-parse (although we should still detect to ensure it doesn't happen) >> - if we created version specific classes each version will be completely >> isolated. >> >> At this stage unless bugs are reported there should be no further >> updates to 1.0 parsing as we move to 1.1 parsing. >> >> >> Any other thoughts? Personally for longer term maintenance I would >> think options 1 or 3 even with the code duplication. >> >> Regards, >> Darran Lofthouse. >> >> >> On 09/23/2011 03:30 PM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>> Anyone mind if I make these changes? My next changes are dependent on >>> being on the next version of the schema. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Darran Lofthouse. >>> >>> >>> On 09/23/2011 03:03 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote: >>>> We should shift the 1.1 as the default and the marshallers should write >>>> the latest. >>>> >>>> On 9/23/11 8:57 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>>>> Also one more question. >>>>> >>>>> Which version should the server now be writing when the configuration is >>>>> persisted? >>>>> >>>>> Do we have a policy for everything to write using the latest schema >>>>> version or are we going to be trying to use the version specified until >>>>> new elements/attributes are encountered? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Darran Lofthouse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 09/23/2011 02:33 PM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>>>>> Now that 7.0.2 is out and the only subsequent planned releases are for >>>>>> 7.1 can we switch the namespace for all default configuration to >>>>>> 'urn:jboss:domain:1.1'? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Darran Lofthouse. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >>>>>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >>>>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev > >