> On 20 Nov 2020, at 19:32, Klaus Malorny <klaus.malo...@knipp.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
Thank you for your answers. You entirely confirmed my thoughts about these
issues.
>
> Klaus
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Taras Heichenko
ta...@academ.kiev.ua
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
