On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:59 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:33 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> >> On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:56 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:40 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:05 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>> >>>>> Openejb trunk now reads both 1.0 and 1/5/1.6 ra.xml's so I'm not sure >>>>> why you would need to upgrade. >>>>> >>>>> However, if you do..... you can upgrade the xml easily, it's basically >>>>> putting a couple elements in between IIRC connector and >>>>> outbound-connectionfactory. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if you have any difficulties. BTW, what 1.0 ra.xml did you >>>>> find? >>>> >>>> Don't have one, just trying to understand the 1.0/1.6 classes. It looks >>>> like it is doing the dynamic translation via subclassing. >>>> >>>> Do we need the ResourceAdapter16 subclass? Is there some sort of JAXB >>>> limitation that requires us to override that one method? >>> >>> I couldn't find a way to make it work without the subclasses, but I don't >>> recall the exact problem when I tried without them. I do want the jaxb >>> classes to be 2-way with the xml, and IIRC some of the solutions I tried >>> only went from xml to java and not the other way -- generating 2 copies of >>> some data in both the 1.0 and 1.6 appropriate elements. However, that was a >>> few months ago and I may not be remembering too clearly. >> >> I wonder how much code duplication we'd have if we just had a completely >> separate connector 1.0 set of objects and just translated them to the >> current model via some method rather than extensive subclassing. Could even >> do something like make a constructor in the new model that took the old >> connector model and pulled all the data out. Something like: >> >> new Connector(connector10); >> >> And that constructor would do all the translating. >> >> Just sort of brainstorming. >> > > I don't really think this much subclassing is "extensive", but I'm pretty > sure your suggestion would work fine for xml>> java. Once you convert from > 1.0 to 1.6 java objects, there's no good way to get back to 1.0 xml. > However, since 1.0 xml is never affected by annotations, we wouldn't be > modifying it and needing to go backwards, so I'm not sure this would be a big > problem. I don't think I'd have any big problems rewriting 1.0 to 1.6 xml > anyway. > > Want me to try this out?
Sure, give it a whirl. :) -David >> >>>>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:43 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mostly directed at David Jencks. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if I had to upgrade a 1.0 ra.xml to a 1.5 or 1.6 ra.xml, what is >>>>>> required? Is it possible to simply "translate" the xml to the newer >>>>>> style or is there no real lineup? >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
