2 Replies Latest reply on Feb 29, 2008 8:54 AM by Adrian Brock

    InstallType vs. CallbackType

    Ales Justin Master

      Why the change/difference in handling installType vs. callbackType?
      There is only single installType to handle both, install and uninstall elements, where incallback and uncallback (yeah, horrible names :-)), each (now) have their own type.

        • 1. Re: InstallType vs. CallbackType
          Ales Justin Master

           

          "alesj" wrote:
          Why the change/difference in handling installType vs. callbackType?

          To be consistent with JAXB?
          Since we have separate metadata classes for install callback and uninstall callback, where there is only single install metadata class for the installs/uninstall?

          • 2. Re: InstallType vs. CallbackType
            Adrian Brock Master

             

            "alesj" wrote:
            "alesj" wrote:
            Why the change/difference in handling installType vs. callbackType?

            To be consistent with JAXB?
            Since we have separate metadata classes for install callback and uninstall callback, where there is only single install metadata class for the installs/uninstall?


            No its called "forward compatibility".
            In the future, we might want to add something that is only for one of them.

            Why did you create an InstallCallbackMetaData with no additional
            properties if not for this reason? :-)

            The JAXB changes just brought the issue into focus.
            The same is probably true of the install and lifecycle types?

            I guess I was a bit lazy in just cloning it, there should really be an
            abstractCallbackType to ease maintenance. :-)