On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:32 AM, Tomas Hofman <thofman(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Yes, that's what I believe should be done.
Adding also Tomasz and Tom :).
I'm yet to asses the impact on documentation, by my feeling from my
initial investigation was that I didn't found very many documents dealing
Please check with the Teiid folks, as Teiid heavily uses this subsystem.
Am I correct in thinking that if the new parser is able to parse the old
config version, no other migration work is needed?
Right, unless Stefano wants the parser for the new schema version to be
forgiving and allow the old attribute.
On 19/07/18 22:38, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> So basically the issue here is that the xml attribute should be called
> 'name' instead of 'pool-name'?
> Sounds like a minor Enhancement not a major Bug. If there's much in the
> way of docs out there that use pool-name then the cost of changing it
> (wrong docs) may outweigh any benefit.
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Tomas Hofman <thofman(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> The <admin-object> and <connection-definition> elements in resource
> subsystem have "pool-name" attribute that looks like it isn't used
> anything, which is misleading for users.
> It looks that "pool-name" attribute was intended for functionality
> that wasn't
> implemented. The attributes are only present in XML, and do not exist
> management model.
> During resource creation the values are passed into service value
> (ModifiableAdminObject, ModifiableConnDef), but #getPoolName()
> methods are not
> called from anywhere.
> The attributes can't be simply removed because their values are used
> resource addressing, e.g.
> will produce
> <admin-object ... pool-name="test-a-o"/>
> so some "name" attribute is still needed.
> Unless you think that this is not worth having new schema version (or
> intended functionality that requires "pool-name" attrs is planned to
> implemented), I would create new XSD schema version with "pool-name"
> renamed to
> "name" and update the parser. I suppose the new XSD version should be
> rather than 5.1, no matter how small the change.
> Also, AFAIK this change couldn't be backported to released product
> The issue where this was raised is
> -- Tomas Hofman
> Software Engineer, JBoss SET
> Red Hat
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:email@example.com>
> Brian Stansberry
> Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat
Software Engineer, JBoss SET
Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer