Javadogs, Please take a look at this proposal by Andy.
High order bit: The expert group needs to make a decision whether to:1. Not define any annotations, leaving it up to implementations to decide what to do
2. Define a complete set of annotations3. Track JSR 220 and JSR 250 annotations for persistence and mapping and add only annotations for JDO that are not already covered by the other annotation specifications
Orthogonal to the above, we need to decide whether support of annotations for implementations that support JDK 1.5 is required or optional.
Craig On Jul 4, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
For information, you can find an initial (top-level) set of suggested JDO2http://jpox.cvs.sourceforge.net/jpox/JPOX/Plugins/Java5/src/java/ org/jpox/annotations/annotations atSince it's all quiet on annotations I'll provoke further :-)The above link now shows an almost complete set of proposed JDO2 annotations (I changed "PersistentField" to "Field" to match the metadata element). The advantages of matching annotations to metadata element are obvious ... people don't need to relearn the terms they already know from metadata. The only places where I haven't stuck to this are the top-level PersistenceCapable,PersistenceAware annotations (since they make more sense, to me)The only elements missing are Index, ForeignKey, Unique (i'll add these soon), Interface, Property (which are low interest for me) and the recursive aspects of FetchGroup and Embedded (which are restricted due to annotations JDK1.5 design). Needless to say that these are all supported in the latest JPOX nightly builds where you could actually use them interchangeably with your metadata, or JPA annotations, or indeed your own set of annotations if youfeel like it. Comments are welcome. Really. -- Andy
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
