On 20.11.20 14:37, Taras Heichenko wrote:
Right - it's a lot MORE work.
Let's ask Klaus what takes more developer's work, changing namespace, or adding
the extension generation and parsing.
(In the neighbor thread Klaus wrote that his company is developing EPP
software.)
Hi,
well, for the first case our EPP toolkit already allows the use of the
domain, host and contact objects with different XML namespaces. The
changes would mostly comprise creating subclasses for the respective
commands and responses that simply override the previous (RFC 5733)
namespace, since the schema would not change. This is less work than
creating a brand new extension.
For the registrar system, I would have to introduce a configuration
parameter to select EAI support in any case. For the login process, the
work would also be more or less the same. For the code actually issuing
the contact commands only changes for the creation of the toolkit
objects would be required in the first case, whereas the extension
version would require additional logic to create the extension resp.
check for the presence of the extension and fiddle around with it. This
is some more work and an additional source of bugs.
For the namespace solution, when some time in the future all supported
registries have phased out the RFC 5733 contact object, I could clean up
my code. In contrast, the code for the extension would stay forever and
clutter up my code.
Klaus
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
