Rebecca Parks wrote:
> Would making events truly extensible mean not providing any built-in
> types at all? Do the advantages of extensibility outweigh the
> advantages of having some events built-in?
Depends on what you mean by "built-in". I *do* think all these types
should come pre-packaged with GlassFish and ready to use.
> An issue with the "built-in" types is that they're not fully built-in.
> The types are enumerated in the DTD, but the detailed settings for each
> type are in limbo. These settings are hard-coded in the GUI but are
> *not* hard-coded attributes in the domain DTD. The settings are
> properties, and properties are typically used for third-party settings
> of which the App Server has no knowledge.
>
> If extensibility is the way to go, we should deprecate the existing
> properties and provide mbeans that do the same thing. If built-in types
> are the way to go, we should make the type settings attributes, not
> properties.
To make the set of types extensible I think we need properties, or a much
more flexible approach to the DTD, perhaps moving to XML Schema.