Stepping back a little, the truth is, any of the options on the table at this point will likely meet the requirements, and I suspect we're unlikely to reach 100% consensus on the design, so why don't you either call a vote on which alternative with a time limit, or just pick a deadline and say if there hasn't been a consensus by then you'll just pick one and check it in so we can move on from here. If you call a vote, it would help if the people voting +1 are willing to put some time into implementing the code, since we have a fair bit of DD coverage left (EAR, RAR, and the missing Geronimo schemas).
Aaron On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote: > I've had a look at Aarons patch posted to > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=GERONIMO-76 > > While better - it still suffers from trying to provide two inheritance > trees and only fully implementing one of them. This works for now because > we have so few geronimo specific elements in the tree. > > I've been working on the alternatives I have suggested. Firstly I stand > corrected > that the interface approach is not less code. It's about the same, what it > gains > in removed duplicate code it looses in the extra interface classes required. > Again because we have so little geronimo specific config in the tree at the > moment, > it looks a little silly. > > Thus I have gone ahead with the much simpler model of just a single tree > of geronimo DD POJOs. I have posted a tar of the code to the issue for > people to review. I have also fixed up the naming convention of the classes > (Ejb -> EJB etc.) > It is compiling and passing the test harnesses - but I'm not sure how good > they > are so I'll do some more testing shortly. > > So I think it is over to people other than Aaron and myself to get some > feedback. > > cheers > > PS. If somebody is really keen on the standard interface version - I have > a copy of that which compiles for deployment - but I have not fixed up the > rest of the > code to use it. > > > >
