> On Oct. 28, 2015, 1:41 p.m., Alan Conway wrote: > > Sorry if I'm being thick, but can't *all* annotations be referenced by > > name? Do we need the extra marker, i.e. is there a difference between a > > "referential" and a "non-referenetial" annotation? Its been a while since I > > was in this code so maybe there's something I've forgotten. > > Ernie Allen wrote: > We only need the extra marker for the console. It needs an indication of > which annotations should be separated in the UI. > > Alan Conway wrote: > Is there a reason not to separate all annotations? That would save us the > extra tag and attendant bikeshed controversy over what to call it. On the > other hand, if there is a reason then Ship It. > > "referential" does have the advantage that I immediately realize I don't > know what it means, instead of thinking I know what it means and only > figuring out much later that I don't. > > Ernie Allen wrote: > "Is there a reason not to separate all annotations?" > The other annotations (as of now) are connectionRole and addrPort. > - connectionRole only has a single attribute so it seems wrong to > separate it out, give it a name, and then refer to it by name. > - addrPort could be separated if more than one section in the config file > needed to refer to the same addr/port. But I don't think that is the case now. > If we were to list all the annotations that applied to an entity, I'd > still need to know which ones should be treated separatly in the UI. > > Instead of "referential" I could use > "this-annotation-should-be-separated-and-referred-to-by-name-in-the-UI". > *Apologies if that comment comes accross as snide. It was intended as > tongue-in-cheek.* > Actually, reading that fake name gave me an idea: How about > 'ui-separate'? > > Or I could just hard-code that the listener and connector entities use > the sslProfile annotation. That would avoid any changes to the schema.
Ship it. There's nothing more unsightly than someone with their tounge outside their cheeks. - Alan ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104287 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.) > > > Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, > and Ted Ross. > > > Repository: qpid-dispatch > > > Description > ------- > > Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the > entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console > enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes. > > schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a > ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute. > > I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred > to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'. > > I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list > is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential. > > > Diffs > ----- > > python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb > python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > bin/test.sh > > > Thanks, > > Ernie Allen > >
