<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about having a java class + annotations that contain all data a builder > needs? >This java class can then be used as the interface that the proxy > class implements.
Currently the real power of MMBase is that there is no need to create java files. Its weakness is that the standard way of extending builders is doing it via the core. I think that if the function framework gets a bit more polished I might get usable. but it is still a hassle to program core MMBase (I did not found external programmers ever wanting to get that close to mmbase). We must remember that the bridge was created as the api for MMBase. Object creation is done below the bridge. If we want to extend the behaviour of mmbase we can go 2 way's. Above the bridge (recreating mmbase, define classes that must be mapped to node types). This is wat the current cms's based on mmbase do Under the bridge (creating interfaces that extend Node). The lasted is actually on the road map for mm base 2.0 I think both have great potential. If we want to go "above" the bridge we need to choose a good framework (Stringframework) and write adapters (to cut inheritance) to perform mmbase2framework translations - things like NodeList to List of beans - form/bean2node - query adapters *jxpath* We can also decide to follow standards:jdo,jcr "Under the bridge" We will keep functionality within mmbase. remain generic. There seams to be a ongoing motion. --wanting to be able to script --wanting to be able to define behaviour / strong types objects --wanting to be able to script the strong typed object --.. etc > The interface could still be generated from UML. or with mmbasedoclet _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
