- javaTypes
in org.apache.servicecomb.swagger.invocation.response.ResponseMeta not
always avaiable, maybe will affect filters and handlers
---- This is rarely used, I think.
-
org.apache.servicecomb.swagger.invocation.SwaggerInvocation#swaggerArguments
not always avaiable, or will be deleted , maybe will affect
filters and handlers
---- If we can provide a method to get the arguments if users need
them in some common scenarios? Such as primitive parameters.
- highway will upgrade to highway2, because highway codec is not
compatible to standard protobuf, this will cause
consumer and producer must upgrade together when they use highway.
---- If user still use highway, not highway2(That is we keep the old
implementation), is it possible?
------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????: "zzzwjm"<zzz...@gmail.com>;
????????: 2019??2??11??(??????) ????4:48
??????: "dev"<dev@servicecomb.apache.org>;
????: Re: [discuss][java-chassis] change core mechanism from strong typetoweak
type
after change to weak type, not compatible include following at least:
- javaTypes
in org.apache.servicecomb.swagger.invocation.response.ResponseMeta not
always avaiable, maybe will affect filters and handlers
-
org.apache.servicecomb.swagger.invocation.SwaggerInvocation#swaggerArguments
not always avaiable, or will be deleted , maybe will affect
filters and handlers
- highway will upgrade to highway2, because highway codec is not
compatible to standard protobuf, this will cause
consumer and producer must upgrade together when they use highway.
maybe other not comptible functions.....
bismy <bi...@qq.com> ??2019??2??11?????? ????9:50??????
> Can you list notable changes that users need to know when upgrade to the
> new version? This can help us to make the decision.
>
>
> In my opinion, if users upgrade to new version, and they can make some
> code change without lose any function, we can go forward this PR. Plus for
> running applications, one microservice upgrade does not cause others
> (providers/consumers) to upgrade is necessary.
>
>
> If the two conditions mentioned above not match, we need to create a new
> branch to merge this PR.
> ------------------ ???????? ------------------
> ??????: "zzzwjm"<zzz...@gmail.com>;
> ????????: 2019??2??1??(??????) ????11:34
> ??????: "dev"<dev@servicecomb.apache.org>;
>
> ????: Re: [discuss][java-chassis] change core mechanism from strong type
> toweak type
>
>
>
> useful for all scenes, i just write edge as a example, because edge has the
> most serious problem with jvm meta overflow
> edge and normal microservice share the same mechanism
>
> compatible problem include:
>
> - some customer's handler and filter customization maybe need some
> change, because:
> -
> org.apache.servicecomb.swagger.invocation.SwaggerInvocation#swaggerArguments
> will change name or removed
> - java datatype in operationMeta will not always present
> - abandon highway, change to highway2, because highway codec based on
> ProtoStuff, ProtoStuff depend on strong type and not compatible to
> ProtoBuf
> for some datatye
> - ......
>
>
>
> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> ??2019??1??31?????? ????9:07??????
>
> > What's the difference between the strong type and weak type?
> > From the mail I can tell the weak type is useful in the edge service,
> > can we just us it in the edge service?
> >
> > BTW, We need to be care if there is a API break change, heading to
> > version 2.0.0 is a good way, is there any other big change we need to
> > make in the java-chassis 2.0.0?
> >
> > Willem Jiang
> >
> > Twitter: willemjiang
> > Weibo: ????willem
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:39 PM wjm wjm <zzz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > currently, core mechanism is strong type
> > > that caused to generate class dynamically in many special classloader,
> > it's
> > > dangerous:
> > >
> > > - need to generate almost all business classes in edge, maybe cause
> > jvm
> > > meta overflow
> > > - unable to support advanced features of swagger, such as allOf
> > > - caused some unnecessary data model convert
> > >
> > >
> > > so we need to change core mechanism from strong type to weak type, we
> had
> > > disscussed this before.
> > >
> > > the new problem is, because the two mechanism is not compatible, we
> must
> > > make decisions about:
> > >
> > > - if plan it to be version 2.0.0
> > > - if we create branch for it
> > > - if not create branch, then same functions will have two
> implements,
> > > how to named the package
> > > - if create branch, then i will replace old implement directly,
> that
> > > cause compile problems
> > >
> > > any suggestion?
> >
