Stephen, no offense taken here, honestly. If I remember correctly, I sounded quite defensive some replies up this thread .. ;-).
Werner Stephen Bash wrote: > Werner- > > Sorry, didn't mean to sound defensive... I agree with your logic now > that I've heard it, just wasn't thinking about the big picture. > > Thanks, and I hope someone steps up for it. > > Stephen > > > On 2/1/06, *Werner Guttmann* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Stephen, > > I am not saying 'let's do this on the JDO side of things' only ... ;-). > Having said that, here's some random observations: > > * I have been and still am quite busy (together with Ralf) preparing > the > 1.0 M2 release for either tomorrow and/or Friday. In addition, we have > scheduled a 1.0M3 in two/three weeks time, as we want to go towards a > 1.0 final in an iterative way. > > * As you have probably noticed yourself, there's a lot of XML bugs out > there that imho should be addressed first before going about > implementing a new feature (as interesting it might seem). > > * Having a little bit more resources, I thought that we could start on > the JDO side, find a possible way ( e.g. via extending the mapping file > as suggested by yourself) ... and hence allow you (the XML side in > general) to benefit from the lessons learned. Bear in mind that both > Castor XML and JDO have the castor.mapping package in common, as both > areas (can( use a mapping file. > > * For some folks, having to define a new property (to be named) on a > field by field base might seem tedious and unnecessary, if bespoke > property could be defined on e.g. the class mapping level. Some others > might prefer an approach where there's a default (either way) for the > class level, and for individual fields the would want to override that > definition. > > Just my 0.02 cents worth ... > > Werner > > Stephen Bash wrote: > > Werner- > > > > Any reason you're interested in JDO side first? I'm only using > XML, and > > I would also like to see this capability added... That being > said, I'm > > not sure I have the time to work up the patch for XML, but I guess > I can > > look at it when I do find some time. > > > > And my personal opinion would be a modification to the mapping file > > specifying that Castor should use reflection to get at the field (I'm > > not sure if there is any way to do this other than reflection). The > > mapping file has the advantage that I can define this property on a > > field by field basis. > > > > Stephen > > > > > > On 2/1/06, *Werner Guttmann* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > wrote: > > > > Based upon this little discussion, is anybody willing to come > up with an > > initial patch (specific to Castor JDO initially, if possible) > ? That > > patch should take care of the following tasks: > > > > * identify the contract (if required at all); iow, define a > way that > > users can instruct Castor to access private getter/setters. > This could > > be either a configuration option via castor.properties, or be > in form of > > an amendment to the mapping file. > > * identify the main areas of change (iow, include some meaningful > > (though minimal) documentation. > > * make the necessary changes in for of a unified patch. > > > > Having said that, I think that I'd like to see a initial > contribution > > from somebody else than me and/or Ralf ... ;-). > > > > l4l > > Werner > > > > Gregory Block wrote: > > > > > > On 25 Jan 2006, at 20:08, Jay Goldman wrote: > > > > > >> IMHO this gives castor license to cross the public/private > 'barrier' > > >> when the user of castor has asked for this behavior ( i.e., via > > >> direct="true") just as java serialization allows for the > setting of > > >> private data. > > > > > > > > > *cheer* > > > > > > 150% behind you. :) > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty > > message > > > to the following address: > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > send an empty message to the following address: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > send an empty message to the following address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty message to the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------
