The issue with including defaults in the model arrives when you start
looking at the marshalling of the servers XML configuration as there is
no indication so show what added the default value to the model.
If defaults are added to the model we could end up with a situation
where a basic configuration is read where all optional attributes are
omitted for the defaults to be used and the resulting XML when it is
written later will contain every default value.
Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
On 04/04/2011 04:16 PM, Heiko Braun wrote:
+1
I would say, just include it.
For a management client it doesn't matter if it's a user provided or default
value.
Having to know what default values exist by looking at the description just creates
another possible error source.
The less ambiguity the better.
/Ike
On Apr 4, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Heiko Braun wrote:
>
> Brian wrote:
>
> This is an example of a general issue that we need to resolve: whether the model
should reflect only the actual user-provided configuration, with defaults omitted if not
specified by the user, or should it include the default values?
>
> If we don't include defaults in the model, they must be available via the model
description.
>
> We're inconsistent in our approach to this; for Beta3 we need to decide the
approach we want.
>
> I'm leaning toward including the defaults in the model. It takes more effort to
not do that, and it's something that's likely to be done wrong.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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