Hi
It's the difference between
(a) having to do a big-bang conversion when switching to Pivot2.0
and
(b) being able to get things running quickly, and then make the updates
piece-meal.
Personally, I have no real problem either way, because I don't have any
WTKX files to convert of my own.
I just think gradual upgrade paths are a good habit to get into.
I personally hate it when I upgrade one of my dependencies and have to
spend ages just getting the thing compiling before I can even start testing.
Just my 2c,
Noel Grandin
Greg Brown wrote:
> I understand the desire to provide a more "backwards-compatible" solution.
> However, I see two main issues with it:
>
> 1) As you noted, it is still a bit of a hack, even if we do something along
> the lines of what you suggest.
>
> 2) It provides an incentive for developers to not update their code to use
> the new conventions. At some point, we'll need to drop the backwards
> compatibility and they will have to upgrade - I don't think it really makes a
> difference if we do that for version 2.0 or version 2.1.
>
> I created an Ant script yesterday that will perform the conversion. It's
> really easy to run - just point it at the directory you want to update. I
> used it to convert the tests and tutorials projects and the only issue I ran
> into was how to bulk-add the new .bxml files to SVN. However, the one-line
> shell command Mike S. provided took care of that:
>
>
>> find ./ -name \*.bxml -exec svn add {} \;
>>
> G
>
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 3:30 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
>
>
>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
