On 8/27/05, Clute, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I took a look at implementing such a feature, and it was trivial. > It really only hit 2 spots. > > Does anyone have any objects to me adding a new access type to the > field-descriptor named "anonymous-readonly"? This type responds true for > both isReadOnly() and isAnonymous().
IMO it would make the most sense to separate the two concerns (read/write vs. anonymous), eg. by introducing an anonymous attribute in the field-descriptor element and deprecating the "anonymous" access value (ie. issue a warning in the log when its used). Would make the handling in the XDoclet module easier, too. Btw, would it make sense to add a writeonly access type (which isn't queried, only inserted/updated) ? Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
