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.


-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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to