On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Ara Abrahamian wrote:
> Yup, also @ejb:finder signature="Collection findAll()" orion:query="$1 =
> $myField AND $myOtherField > 5"
>
> And so on. I think for most tags it's better to have tags like this for
> the vendor-specific tags which are dependent on other tags. It's
> possible to define some generic parameters like db:sql-type to cover all
> jboss/orion/ws:sql-type params. I'm going to apply this theme for
> Orion-specific stuff:
>
> db: prefixed @tags and parameters for items that can be generalized.
> vendor: prefixed parameters for things like @ejb:finder instead of
> separate @vendor: tags, specially for things like finder and persistent
> fields.
ok so two questions. Should we do this before v1.0? Sounds like
yes. Secondly I'm unsure of abstracting db:sql-type, mainly because I
dont know that we can, as opposed to knowing we cant. I see that with
XDoclet you should be able to create an app, that has the correct
ejb-jar.xml _and_ however many other dd that are required for jboss,
orion, wl, ws, etc, etc... this means that if jboss and orion and ws all
require db info about the persistent-field, but they require that
information in a different form, we'd need to create seperate tags... I
suppose I'm just unsure of what the different vendor's requirements
are. Does that make sense? As long as @persistent-field
db:sql-type="VARCHAR" is going to be valid across all vendors (which I
suppose it is, VARCHAR is just out of the sql92 specs isn't it?), then I'm
happy, but I dont know for sure myself if this is so. Does that make
sense?
on the ws front - I will chat to the guy at work (Minh Yie) who did the ws
stuff and try and get myself in a position to finish it off tonight (or
start finishing it off anyway!)...
cheesr
dim
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
