A wise old hermit known only as Dmitri Colebatch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> once said:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Andrew Stevens wrote: > > > 472759 - OK. With @ejb:bean generate="false" the BMP class isn't > > generated any more, but the other files are. > > which other files? PK, data object, home & remote interfaces. In practise, if you don't want the BMP/CMP/Session class generated you probably wouldn't want those done either, but I assumed the @ejb:pk etc. had their own generate parameter to control that. I must admit I didn't check those, though, it was only the @ejb:bean one I tested. > is that a good thing then, or are you saying (as I > suspect) that the ejb-jar.xml et al reference a now non-existant class? It is a good thing; it means one of the bugs is sorted. There is still a problem with the ejb-jar.xml, but that was the other one :-) It doesn't reference the non-existent BMP class any more, unfortunately it doesn't reference anything... > > 472764 - not okay. With @ejb:bean generate="false" the template > > assumes the EJB is an abstract one and not to be included in the DD > > (so instead of getting the wrong class name, now I get nothing at > > all). In fact, it's entirely the reverse situation; the reason I > > don't want it generated is because it's a concrete BMP implementation > > rather than the abstract Bean class XDoclet wants... > > > > Perhaps as well as the generate parameter, we need another one (e.g. > > deploy="true|false", default = true) for whether or not a bean should > > be included in the DD. That way, if it really is an abstract EJB > > there's a way to exclude it from the DD, but that's independent of > > whether we're generating the BMP/CMP/Session class for it. > > hmmm.. yeah, so we have two scenarios: > 1) I have a base class that I have some common functionality in - this > shouldn't have a subclass generated, and should not be in the dd > 2) I have a bmp entity that I done want a subclass generated for - > this > shouldn't have a subclass generated, but should be in the dd. > > so you're proposing something like: > > @ejb:bean generate="false" deploy="true" > > what should deploy default to if generate is false and deploy is absent? Depends whether you think it's more common for people to be using an abstract base EJB than to be using existing concrete EJBs and just wanting XDoclet to generate the DD. On the whole, I'd probably go with defaulting to true, but I'm biased - I don't have any abstract base EJBs, but others here are developing EJBs with other tools so there's a mixture of XDoclet-generated and concrete hand-coded beans. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
