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? thanks david jencks > > -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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
