Should the standalone-teiid.xml be self-documenting and include all known elements/attributes? In carrying forward https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-1873 the security doc reference elements/attributes that aren't in the file.
As we are close to our first alpha any help in updating the docs would be great.
I am looking at adding parsing support for extension properties in the function models and this brings up a few questions. Beyond additional metadata for the aggregate case, this can also address https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIIDDES-152 to add metadata for vararg, nullOnNull, etc.
1. This seems slightly non-trival as there is a lot of associated metadata for every single property. Will/can function metamodel properties end up in the properties index which we can then merge as needed?
2. How are extension metadata prefixes being handled? Are they always being stripped from property keys?
3. Now that the function model has lost it's special status within the runtime, there isn't a reason going forward for having it separate from the relational model. What is the effort involved (or level of desire) in combining it? I could assist in updating the indexing logic.
----- Original Message -----
> Just a heads up that language object changes for 8.0 are happening
> under issue https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-1560. The end
> state should allow us to support user defined aggregate functions.
> This will rely on the existing function model and extension
> metadata rather than requiring a metamodel change.