Halo!
My list was:
1/ components
2/ custom persistence (GRFT-54 like)
3/ relations
4/ inheritance
5/ spread (if it applies, I am not sure yet).
I am not sure about the connection with collection converters? Are you asking if the interface of
collection converters fits the interface i was describing for GRFT-54? Well they are in the same
direction, but there are big differences.
My goal is to have the 1st 2 defined by the end of this week, so that during the weekned I can
already start working on them.
My current vision is to redesign the bean-descriptor to fit all 3 scenarios: components, custom
persistence and current scenario. In big lines they are very related, the only difference between
them being the node under which they are persisted:
components: directly in the current node
GRFT-54: somewhere on a node in a subtree rooted in the current node
current bd: as a direct child node in the current node.
If all these can be leveled in the bd definition than I guess we pretty much
covered a lot.
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
#: Christophe Lombart changed the world a bit at a time by saying (astral date:
1/16/2006 11:01 PM) :#
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
