forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Properties for contract (was Re: Dispatcher 1.0 - towards a stable version)
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:09:37 GMT
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 10:10 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 14:59 +0200, Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>> ...
>>> The first solution is fast to implement and seems quite clean. The
>>> downside is that we cannot use xml anymore. Which actually IMO is not
>>> that bad since maybe we start to use the actual
>>> to configure contracts.
>>> The second solution is more complicated to implement since the
>>> aggregation has to be done in the DispatcherTransformer which does not
>>> feel right but we could use xml in the properties.
>>> Personally the cleaner solution is 1 but that would break downward
>>> compatible by a couple of contracts.
>>> WDYT?
>> I haven't thought long and hard about this. I'm going on your assessment 
>> and my gut reaction.
>> I'd say go for option 1 because:
>> a) I like that it brings more configuration into the new properties system
>> b) you said it is easier to implement
>> c) we currently have no use case for using XML in the properties
>> d) if we find a use case for XML we can deal with it at that point (and 
>> maybe implement the second solution by adapting the properties system to 
>> allow XML)
> To not break downward compatibility I will implement the option 1 but
> with a flag "allowXmlProperties". I added the javadoc that setting this
> properties to true will be paid by performance but this let our current
> dispatcher user decide when to update their contracts and structurer.



View raw message