Hi
I had an idea while out cycling yesterday.
How about we add code that looks something like this:
for (java.lang.annotation.Annotation ann :
field.getAnnotations()) {
if
(ann.annotationType().getName().equals("org.apache.pivot.wtkx.WTKX")) {
....process as if we hit the BXML annotation...
}
}
It's a bit of a hack, but it will allow BeanSerializer to decode "old"
files while not having an explicit reference to the WTKX annotation.
Then we can mark WTKX as deprecated and give people some grace to port
their files.
Regards, Noel.
Greg Brown wrote:
> That's the problem - we can't easily support backwards compatibility. I had
> originally hoped to have WTKXSerializer extend BeanSerializer in Pivot 1.6,
> and then drop WTKXSerializer in 2.0. However, we can't do that with
> @WTKX/@BXML, because annotations can't inherit. So, we're kind of stuck with
> an all-or-nothing approach, unless we introduce a cross-project dependency
> such that BeanSerializer also looks for WTKX annotations, which I really
> don't want to do. That is why I am suggesting that we go to version 2.0.
>
> I was thinking that we could provide a script that will do a
> search/replace/rename so developers don't need to do this manually. That
> should at least make the transition a little easier.
>
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
>
>
>> Sure, but surely we can provide aliases for those things internally so
>> existing files continue to work?
>> Maybe with a runtime warning to System.out so people know that they need
>> to upgrade at some point.
>>
>> It just seems a little harsh to dump that amount of work on people when
>> we can reasonably easily provide a gradual upgrade path.
>>
>> -- Noel
>>
>> Greg Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Files with a .wtkx extension will still work fine. However, the "wtkx"
>>> namespace prefix will change to "bxml", the annotation will change to
>>> @BXML, and the serializer will change to BeanSerializer, so for consistency
>>> I think we'd want to recommend changing the file extension as well.
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Noel Grandin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with the version numbering, but is there any
>>>> reason why you can't continue to support the WTKX extension for
>>>> backwards compatibility?
>>>>
>>>> -- Noel
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 02:13, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to refactor WTKXSerializer to BeanSerializer and move it
>>>>> to Pivot Core for the next release. However, I think this change is too
>>>>> disruptive for the 1.x line. As a developer, I don't think I would be too
>>>>> pleased to discover that I need to update all of my WTKX files to BXML
>>>>> when migrating from Pivot 1.5 to Pivot 1.6. As a result, I'd like to
>>>>> suggest that the next major version of Pivot be 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> We currently have Pivot 1.5.1 in the pipeline and can do additional point
>>>>> releases for 1.5 as needed. We'll reshuffle the items currently assigned
>>>>> to 1.6 and 2.0 into 2.0, 2.1, etc. as appropriate. Any objections?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
