Hi,
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When you say "...all access to CMP fields..." do you mean access by the
> container? I ask because we have at least one class where there are some
> fields which are not directly set/get but are used to construct an object
> that is set/get. It sounds odd but it makes sense in our application.
Well, I'm going just by memory here for the little I remember from couple
of months back. I'll let the spec experts correct me :)
But from what I remember, the EJB2.0 spec defines a persistence manager
whose responsibility is to create the concrete entity bean classes that
manage the entity's persistence. I believe with the additions to the
deployment XML and the PM's ability to generate the accessors it's
possible to create dependent objects, many-to-many relationships, etc.,
better than what we can do today (better meaning portable across EJB
containers).
So it would seem that the responsibility of CMP fields is shifted from the
Container to the Persistence Manager. And the PM would access the fields
through the abstract methods.
But, as I said, I haven't really studied this new spec, so you might want
to get a confirmation from the real experts :)
Also, the new spec requires EJB 1.1 support as well, so I don't think it
will be a problem if you don't have those accessors today.
-- Juha
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
