> >>> > >>> Option 1 matches more or less current marshaling. I personally would > prefer Option 2 because this would give us the opportunity to easily extend > EntitlementTO at a later point (if needed) without becoming incompatible > with previous version. > >> Agree with you for the reason given above. > > Not sure about this one as I do not know how probable it is that we > > have more attributes in Entitlement. > > May be a rule or a validity date or something like this. > I'll keep the possibility to extend EntitlementTO.
A validity date would not be necessary. It is only important to tell the unmarshaller to be LAX with the received document. By this the ummarshaller will only unmarshall elements he can map to a given Class attribute and ignore the rest. This gives us the possibility to introduce new elements handled by new consumers and ignored by old consumers. Thus not breaking anything. Regards. Jan
