On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I already have such an annotation defined in the databinding-
framework module. We probably want to rename it as DataType to be
consistent with the DataType model.
O.K. I'll add this into API. Looking at the API package, I'm not sure
why @Monitor is defined there as I think that should be in SPI. I
believe Jeremy moved it there, so I'll have to ask him.
As for the two different annotation styles, I had some discussions
with Jeremy. Here're some issues we touched:
1) The annotation can be used to create/decorate a DataType
2) The generic annotation should be able to catch all the related
metadata for a given DataType (maybe some name/value pair for extra
info)
3) We should allow databinding providers to add their own
annotation if they choose to do so (I assume it's low proirity for
now)
Also, some quick questions inline:
On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
For the data transformation to be handled by a databinding
interceptor, let's assume we have the following case:
* The source side uses SDO.
<import.sdo location="xsd/customer.xsd"/>
int getCreditScore(@databinding.sdo(namespace="http://
customer" name="Customer")Customer customer);
Is data binding definable per param, with the possibility to mix
or do we want to just say for the entire method (mixing seems
kind of strange). Also, what about the return value? Maybe it
would be better to place the param only on the method?
This concern was brought up by Ant as well. We have three levels
here: Interface, Method and Parameter. Jeremy's DataType model
seems to promote Parameter level. I think it's reasonable to set
some defaults at Interface or Method level.
Is there a realistic case where people mix data types within an
operation? That seems kind of weird. Perhaps we just start with
interface and method level?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
