-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: Krishnan, C.P. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
-> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:49 AM
-> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-> Subject: Re: [castor-dev] Source Code generation..
-> Importance: High
->
-> what is to be done there.
->
-> Question with regards to changing source:
-> Does the new code have to be sent back to you all as this
-> is an open source
-> project? Can we continue
-> to use the modified code with no other implications?
You don't have to send us back the modification you make. You have the source
code so you are free to modify it to meet your expectations. When the features you
are adding can be used by other users, you can submit those changes to developers.
They will review your code and can commit it if they deem necessary to do so.
But if those changes only help you or your company and are too specific you can use
your own
modified version of Castor as long as you keep the license in the code and that you say
that you are using Castor.
->
-> Question with regard to the adapter from SAX 1 to SAX 2 and
-> removal of the
-> deprecation warnings:
-> Is there a date / release by which this will be done?
All I can say is that it is planned for 1.0 but I can't give you no estimates on a
date.
-> In case we modify the SourceGenerator source for resolving
-> the issue I
-> talked about,
-> can we seamlessly move over to the newer version? Or will
-> there be issues
-> of backward
-> compatibility?
I don't think you'll face some problems with the changes, you'll make
Arnaud
->
-> Regards
-> C.P.Krishnan
->
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: Arnaud Blandin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
-> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:43 AM
-> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-> Subject: Re: [castor-dev] Source Code generation..
->
->
-> Hi,
->
-> The code generated by version prior to 0.9.3 was not JavaBean
-> compliant and
-> since
-> a requirement for the source code generator is to generator code
-> compliant
-> with
-> the JavaBeans specification
-> (http://java.sun.com/products/javabeans/docs/spec.html), we needed
-> to do this change and we realize that it can introduce some real
-> disappointments.
-> If you want to have the code generated as it was before, you can always
-> change the source of Castor
-> (org.exolab.castor.builder.CollectionInfo and
-> org.exolab.castor.builder.CollectionInfoJ2), take a look
-> at the webCVS diff to see what is to be done.
->
-> For the SAX warning, we will provide our own API with adapters
-> from/to SAX1
-> and SAX2.
->
-> Hope this helps,
->
-> Arnaud
->
->
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: Krishnan, C.P. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
-> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:18 AM
-> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-> Subject: [castor-dev] Source Code generation..
-> Importance: High
->
->
-> Hi
->
-> I do not know if any others have faced the upgrade problem with
-> moving from
-> version 0.9.2 to 0.9.3. I am using Castor strictly as a java source
-> generation tool.
->
-> I have an entity User which can have multiple addresses. And the
-> schema I am
-> using has remained identical throughout.
->
-> Version 0.9.2 generated code for the above entity as:
-> 1. setAddress(Address[] objAddress);
-> and 2. setAddress(Address vAddress, int iIndex);
->
-> This was used by us as a team on all our other development.
->
-> Now when I tried to move to Version 0.9.3 the same code is now being
-> generated as:
-> 1. setAddress(Address[] objAddress);
-> and 2. setAddress(int iIndex, Address vAddress);
->
-> Since we are so far gone along the project this is going to cause heavy
-> integration issues with all source having to change to meet the
-> new method
-> calls.
-> This sort of inconsistency between versions would also lead us to get
-> trapped into using an older version, even though the newer versions may
-> offer much more
-> by way of functionality. There is the promise of being to remove
-> deprecation
-> warnings on org.xml.SAX.DocumentHandler e.g.
->
-> Could the developers take a look at this and resolve it? Or else give an
-> easy solution to make the new code get generated the way it was?
->
-> I am not sure if there are others in the field facing similar issues with
-> using the tool.
->
-> Regards
-> C.P.Krishnan
->
-> -----------------------------------------------------------
-> If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
-> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
-> unsubscribe castor-dev
->
-> -----------------------------------------------------------
-> If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
-> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
-> unsubscribe castor-dev
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
