Re: FetchField cleanup in annotations

[Craig L Russell]

Just one more observation.




And add Property[ ] properties() default {} to FetchGroup.

That should cover nested FetchGroup and properties as well.



Craig

On Jul 17, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

In addition to adding recursionDepth to @Field we should add it to @Property. Looking again at <fetch-group> it doesn't look like the intent was actually to nest fetch-group but to allow references to embedded fetch-group by name, with the actual definition elsewhere.

Now that we've rationalized the foreign keys, can we take another look at the FetchField?

@FetchGroup([EMAIL PROTECTED](name="line", recursionDepth=2)}

we would have this:

@FetchGroup([EMAIL PROTECTED](name="line", recursionDepth=2)}





String[] fetchGroups() default {};



So, proposal:

1. Add recursionDepth to @Field.

2. Remove @FetchField.



4. Add to @FetchGroup String[] fetchGroups() default {};

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!

We added the field name to Field for embedded. Can we add recursionDepth as well? Then instead of this: It's a minor point, but I sorta hate to have an additional FetchField annotation if it isn't needed. And can we fix the nested FetchGroup problem by adding an element to FetchGroup: since we use the names of fetch groups elsewhere and only use the FetchGroup annotation to define the group. 3. Change @FetchGroup FetchField[] fields(); to Field[] fields();

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