SEE INLINE:
> 2. For your implementation you could use something more efficient than
> Vector - refer to the recent messages on this subject.
>
This sounds like a good idea. Maybe a Vector is too limiting.
> 3. I think EJBs are ideal for situations more complex than a
> single row from
> a table. In particular you also need to allow for people to add business
> logic to the 'database EJBs' (for lack of a better term) - I
> reiterate that I
> am no expert, but perhaps the classes can be extended to provide for this
> (a bit like the non-'Base' classes in torque). It would be
> interesting to
> experiment with EJBs that encapsulate joins as well.
I'm not ruling out the complex situations, I was just trying to elaborate on
the
different return types from the session bean.
>
> 4. From your subject it appears that you are proposing to update the
> howto only. Would it make sense to work on a service that generates
> EJBs for the equivalent of the Base torque classes?
>
As for the howto: I just wanted to give a better explanation of how to use
JBoss with Turbine using the code that is in existence.
As for the future: I agree that some type of automatic mapping would be the
optimal solution. I had also thought of an intermediate step that would not
require the code generation. It would involve having a generic session bean
that uses property files to customize it's interaction with entity beans.
This seems like it would only be a half solution though.... I am interested
in checking into the ejbdoclet.
john
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
