Well, honnestly I don't remember the complete discussion. So what are all the improvements you are looking for ? 1. the GRFT-54 support - Are there other similar improvements ? 2. inheritance 3. Spread (?) 4. ??
What about the converter, did you check the collection converter ? is it fit your needs ? On 1/16/06, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #: Christophe Lombart changed the world a bit at a time by saying (astral > date: 1/16/2006 9:48 PM) :# > > On 1/16/06, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> #: Christophe Lombart changed the world a bit at a time by saying (astral > >> date: 1/16/2006 5:25 PM) :# > >> > Concerning issue http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GRFT-54, > >> > Why do you think about the following mapping : > >> > > >> > <class-descriptor className="xxx.File" jcrNodeType="nt:file" > > >> > <field-descriptor fieldName="path" path="true" /> > >> > <subnode-descriptor jcrName="jcr:content" ... > > >> > <field-descriptor fieldName="mimeType" > >> > jcrName="jcr:mimeType" ... /> > >> > <field-descriptor fieldName="encoding" > >> > jcrName="jcr:encodiging" .../> > >> > <field-descriptor fieldName="data" jcrName="jcr:data" ... /> > >> > .... > >> > </subnode-descriptor> > >> > </class-desciptor> > >> > > >> > the "subnode-descriptor" is there to create a new subnode called > >> > "jcr-content" which will contains some object attributes like > >> > mimeType, encoding, ... > >> > > >> > Anyway, I like the "converter" idea. At least, it quite easy to > >> > implement it for the fd. > >> > Converters for cd already exists but they need to be review. But now, > >> > we have to think about how to use the converters for the bd. > >> > > >> > (I don't speak now on inheritance, we can start this discussion later). > >> > > >> > >> The proposal you are making is quite nice for this particular example. But > >> I cannot say how > >> extensible it is (by looking at it I would say that it is pretty much the > >> bean-descriptor). I would > >> like that before introducing more descriptors to be sure that a new one > >> will be able to fill in a > >> whole range of solutions and not just a particular one. The same applies > >> to the existing ones. > > > > ok - can we create a new jira issues which will contain all use cases. > > It is quite difficult to remember all possibilities. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Not sure what you are asking :-(. Is your question about creating a JIRA > issue for each of the > suggested improvements? If yes, than I would say that I would prefere having > it in the ML than > directly on JIRA, and upon concluding adding a JIRA with only the conclusion. > But if you think JIRA > is better to handle this discussion than go ahead and open the necessary > enhancement requests. > > cheers, > > ./alex > -- > .w( the_mindstorm )p. > > > >> > >> ./alex > >> -- > >> .w( the_mindstorm )p. > >> > >> > > >> > On 1/14/06, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> #: Christophe Lombart changed the world a bit at a time by saying > >> >> (astral date: 1/13/2006 11:20 AM) :# > >> >> > On 1/13/06, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> considering the GRFT54 example, you will write: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> <bean-descriptor fieldName="file" > >> >> >> converterClass="NtFileConverter" /> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> and NtFileConverter will be responsible for creating the nt:file > >> >> >> node structure. Same mechanism will > >> >> >> work for fetching. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I like this idea but how set the mapping rules for each attributes ? > >> >> > I expect the field-descriptor, bean-descriptor & collection-descriptor > >> >> > are still necessary if we uses the convertClass. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> This is a very good question to which unfortunately i don't have a good > >> >> answer. While a predefined > >> >> converter knows how to deal with a limitted set of properties/subnodes, > >> >> on the other side (e.g. on > >> >> objects world) those properties may come from really complex > >> >> expressions. > >> >> There are a few possible approaches to solving this, but for the moment > >> >> none of them satisfies me: > >> >> - have the object implement an interface which responds to the needs of > >> >> the converter > >> >> (may be considered bad because it ties the object to the ojcrm tool) > >> >> - have the description provided through the same mechanisms of fd, bd > >> >> or cd > >> >> (may be considered bad because the mapping becomes complex, and changes > >> >> in some way the semantics of > >> >> fd, bd and cd) > >> >> - create/reuse a object graph navigation language > >> >> (may be considered bad because the user should learn a new/the user > >> >> should use a new `language´) > >> >> - have the converter provide extension points so that in special cases > >> >> an user may extend it to > >> >> extract the values/populate the values > >> >> > >> >> Example: > >> >> 1/ in the simplest case where the object provides accessors to the > >> >> object properties according to > >> >> the needs of the converter than you don't need to detail the mapping > >> >> (the node property paths and > >> >> subnodes paths maps directly to object properties) > >> >> 2/ in more complex cases where the object needs special manipulation in > >> >> order to provide/to write > >> >> object properties, than the user should extend the converter and > >> >> provide access to those properties > >> >> > >> >> what do you think? > >> >> > >> >> ./alex > >> >> -- > >> >> .w( the_mindstorm )p. > >> >> > >> >> > > > -- Best regards, Christophe
