Jerome Lacoste wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I have been looking at the existing code base of the Castor plugin for some
days now, and it looks like I will have to break existing contracts to get
it working again (fully, against all Castor releases).
Right now (SVN), the plugin will run against versions of Castor starting
from 1.0.5 to now. But I'd like to get it working against older versions of
Castor as well, but the way it's implemented would not allow that.
There's an arae of code where the plugin tries to outsmart the way Castor
normally works. And the way this has been implemented .. well, moves a
couple of configuration parameters supplied by the means of a file to the
plugin configuration section.
As already said, I'd like to get it working again against all versions of
Castor, and would like to refactor the plugin. For this, I would have to
drop this 'smartness'.
My question: is this actually an option with Mojo plugins. Can we (well,
not) easily drop some configuration parameters even though they have been
supported in the past. Of course we'd make this clear in the plugin
configuration (as much as we don't like this), but I cannot see a way
around.
I think Trygve was very against that idea some months ago arguing that
we can not break backwards compatibility.
Which I can perfectly understand, as per my explanation(s) above. I am
just arguing with myself whether the pragmatic approach as outlined by
yourself doesn't complicate things for users.
Personally, I think that the benefit that has been provided by the
current implementation with regards to 'over-engineering' plugin
configuration (and thus configuration of the underlying Castor source
generator) is limited, if not tending towards 0. I mean, the same can be
achieved by supplying a source generator configuration file as part of
the plugin configuration. And as it's this duality that makes the code
hard to maintain, I'd like to get rid of it.
Anyhow, I think you've got a point there, and we'll definitely consider it.
I'll prefer to be more pragmatic, so if you do, bump the version
number to 2.x ? People should lock the plugin versions anyway...
Or consider renaming either the mojo or the plugin.
Jerome
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
