Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 thorsten.scherler.ext@juntadeandalucia.es designates 217.12.18.114 as
 permitted sender)
Subject: Re: Properties for contract (was Re: Dispatcher 1.0 - towards a
	stable version)
From: Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.scherler.ext@juntadeandalucia.es>
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <48C78F1D.4090103@apache.org>
References: <1220619591.7363.30.camel@thorsten-desktop>
	 <1221035526.6435.70.camel@thorsten-desktop>  <48C78F1D.4090103@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:55:53 +0200
Message-Id: <1221047753.6435.78.camel@thorsten-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 forrest.properties.xml
> > 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.

Thanks for your feedback, Ross.

salu2

> Ross
-- 
Thorsten Scherler                                 thorsten.at.apache.org
Open Source Java                      consulting, training and solutions