+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

Yes, that's the downside. The marshallers don't have to write out default values, and most actually don't. You of course get the opposite problem with that: if people actually specify the default value, it doesn't get written out.

I'm ok with that though; this issue should only arise with attributes that are listed as optional in the xsd and that have proper defaults listed in the xsd. But those xsd defaults are long term API commitments!!! If there is no default in the xsd, there should be no default in the model. On 4/4/11 10:40 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-as7-dev mailing list > jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

still better then having runtime default values that don't show up anywhere.

Would it be possible to drop defaults at all? I mean how many cases are you aware of? If it's just a handful, I would think that not having defaults would be the best solution.

Ike On Apr 4, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > 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. _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev