An FAQ entry would be a good idea probably, but I'd also suggest a simpler solution: include an OJB.properties file in the distribution that's configured in sync with the documentation. The only sample OJB.properties files in the dist now are the ones in test and the one in doc named OJB.properties.txt. When I went looking for an OJB.properties, I didn't look at the file in doc because I assumed from the .txt extension it was something different.
Of course it would also help if the link to the sample OJB.properties in the online docs wasn't broken ;-) Cheers, L. On 10/18/02 1:23 AM, "Thomas Mahler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We changed this because most testcase developers did not care to make > their testcases succeed with PersistentFieldPropertyImpl. So running the > testsuite raised a lot of errors. > With the new setting we ensure that the testsuite succeeds with all > possible settings. > > I think we should place a note in FAQ. > > cheers, > Thomas > > Laurie Harper wrote: >> That's the problem alright. >> >> Souldn't PersistentFieldDefaultImpl be the default in the OJB.properties >> files that ship with OJB? I didn't change this in my OJB.properties, it was >> just set wrong in the distribution... >> >> Anyway, thanks for the pointer! >> >> L. >> >> On 10/17/02 7:46 PM, "Gallagher, Ron (GEPS Contractor)" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Laurie -- >>> >>> Make sure the PersistentFieldClass entry in your ojb.properties file points >>> to org.apache.ojb.broker.metadata.PersistentFieldDefaultImpl. It sounds >>> like you're using >>> org.apache.ojb.broker.metadata.PersistentFieldPropertyImpl. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Ron Gallagher >>> Atlanta, GA >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Laurie Harper [mailto:zodiac@;holoweb.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:44 PM >>> To: OJB Users List >>> Subject: Private vs. public properties for persistent objects >>> >>> >>> This is probably just something obvious I've missed, but I'm having a >>> problem with OJB not recognising private properties. I've had to make all my >>> accessors/mutators public and add public implementations for those that >>> didn't exist, which somewhat cripples encapsulation in my object model :( >>> >>> Unless I'm mis-understanding something, I should be able to use private >>> fields with no accessors/mutators for DB specific properties like foreign >>> key IDs and, by extension, shouldn�t need to provide a public getter and >>> setter for other properties either. >>> >>> What do I need to do to get this to work? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> L. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> >>> >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
