2005/7/16, Oliver Kiessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> hi,
>
> > first of all thank you for the valuable feedback.
> > What is the general feeling about this initial version?
> > Are we heading in the right direction?
>
> I think the initial version is a little too complex. I would prefer a
> much simpler initial solution as christophe stated (simplified xml
> mapping syntax).
>
> I'd prefer something like this (it's just pseudo xml...):
>
> <class name="my.app.Test" jcrNodeType="graffito:Test">
> <property name="myStringProperty" />
> <property name="myComplexObject"
> jcrChildNodeType="graffito:myComplexObject" ... />
> </class>
>
> <class name="my.app.MyComplexObject" jcrNodeType="graffito:myComplexObject">
> <property name="myIntValue" jcrPropertyType="jcr:long" ... />
>
> ....
>
> </class>
>
Personnaly, I'm +1 with your idea. getter/setter are not necessary. I
prefer to use the bean properties directly. Sandro, when do you want
to use getter/setter instead of properties ?
> java class => jcr node
> java class property (primitive and String) => jcr property
> java class complex property (bean) => jcr child node with jcr properties
(1) or a reference using a JCR ID. Eg. a Document can have a
ParentFolder property but this property is not a Document child node.
Is it make sense for you ?
> java class array property (primitive and String) => jcr multivalued property
> java class array property (bean) => jcr child node with n jcr child nodes
Same idea as (1)
> java class collection property (bean) => jcr child node with n jcr child nodes
>
Same idea as (1)
In my point of view, an association tag is needed to make references
to a JCR node somewhere.
> I think we should go for an "convention over configuration" approach.
> Why specify that a java class property of type String maps to a jcr
> string property (we can use reflection to find out property
> types....)? You know what I mean? One should only add this information
> if it's break the convention.
>
> > If nobody completely disagrees with it, I would try to get a solution
> > for the JAXB
> > issue on the basis of a general consensus.
>
> -1 for JAXB
>
> +1 for Commons-beanutils or XmlBeans (they have just released a new version
> 2.0)
Is it necessary to use xmlBeans ? Digester is not sufficiant. it is
quite simple to use.
>
> > If that is finished I would like to integrate the suggestions in the
> > code base
> > and commit it in a new branch.
>
> +1
>
> regards,
> oliver
>
