Re: PropertySet 1.0.x to 1.2.x conversion

I actualy thought of that being the reason, after I posted the message. 
It's probably an ok reason, had the change been documented.

Once I am completely finished and have working code, I am going to 
update the wiki to better describe the upgrade from OsWorkflow 1.0 to 
2.6, including the 3 related libs. Generally it has been a hellish journey:

OsWorkflow:
- tables changed in 3-4 steps, described, but not completely or accurately.
- java apis and usage changed, touching a bunch of code (mostly from the 
FunctionProvider interface changing, but it's an error prone upgrade, 
plus some semantic differences here and there).
-  workflow definition changed, with clear procedure, but almost every 
other line needing touching
OsUser:
- we were using a custom provider, so work was less than it might have 
been. Update provider for package movement. change config files
OsCore/Propertyset:
- handle undocumented changes in sequence tables
- handle undocumented changes
- handle changes in config and usage

Btw, don't get me wrong. I'm not making these comments to the extent 
that I am trying to say I 'expected' that things had been documented 
better. In the end all that you can expect of an open source project is 
exactly what the developers decide to give you. If I am a bit frustrated 
now it's because I either should either not have used the stuff in the 
first place as it was too raw, or tried to upgrade more often as stuff 
got released (not much of a possiblity due to some constraints here, and 
might have added up to more work anyways), or made sure that now more 
time was allocated to this upgrade, in the middle of an already way too 
tight schedule.

Regards,
Colin

Hani Suleiman wrote:

> Yes, I agree absolutely.
>
> This was back in the day when Pat was young and innocent and knew next 
> to nothing about backward compatibility. His reason for changing this 
> was that some db's didn't allow a column of name key.
>
> I'm sorry you got bit by this, but rest assured these sorts of 
> arbitrary changes don't happen anymore without very very good reason 
> (which hopefully makes them a bit less arbitrary!)
>
> On Feb 6, 2004, at 6:56 PM, Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
>
>> Actually that's not true. For some unknown reason, the entry's 'key' 
>> field has changed the matching db column name from 'key' to 
>> 'keyvalue'. This seems to be very arbitrary and annoying (unless I'm 
>> missing something), as the code itself still seems to be the same, 
>> but it added another schema piece I have to migrate.
>>
>> from oscore roughly 1.0, PropertyEntryEJB.java:
>>    /**
>>     * @ejb:persistent-field
>>     * @ejb:interface-method
>>     * @jboss:column-name name="key"
>>     * @weblogic:dbms-column key
>>     * @orion:persistence persistence-name="key"
>>     * @ejb:persistence column="KEY"
>>     */
>>    public abstract String getKey();
>>
>> from propertyset 1.2, PropertyEntryEJB.java:
>>    /**
>>     * @ejb.interface-method
>>     * @ejb.persistence column-name="keyvalue"
>>     */
>>    public abstract String getKey();
>>
>> Regards,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> Hani Suleiman wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, none of the schemas have changed.
>>>
>>> Colin Sampaleanu said:
>>>
>>>> Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am currently converting an app from OSWorkflow 1.0 to 2.6. The DB
>>>>> conversion was relatively straightforward (although less than
>>>>> enjoyable) since it is for the most part documented. I am actually
>>>>> going to fix up a few glitches in the docs on the wiki and contribute
>>>>> a program which does the conversion.
>>>>>
>>>>> However since OSWorkflow depends on PropertySet, I now seem to have
>>>>> come to the nasty part. Is there any documentation on converting an
>>>>> existing schema/data from PropertySet 1.0.x (seems like OsWorkflow 
>>>>> 1.0
>>>>> uses PropertySet 1.0.0) to version 1.2 (which is what OsWorkflow 2.6
>>>>> seems to use). Looks like the many tables used before, one for each
>>>>> entity type, have been consolidated into the one entry table. I am
>>>>> just starting this conversion, and will of course figure things out
>>>>> from the source if needed, but if there is any existing document or
>>>>> email that already spells it out, it would be much appreciated...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Never mind. I did not realize that the different impls. of PropertySet
>>>> used different schemas. I was comparing the PropertySet 1.0.0 EJB 
>>>> impl's
>>>> schema to the PropertySet 1.2 JDBC impl's schema. Looks like the EJB
>>>> schema has not changed...
>>>>



-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn