Feature Requests item #476515, was opened at 2001-10-30 12:45 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=402707&aid=476515&group_id=31602
Category: Interface Improvements (example) Group: Next Release (example) Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: Thomas Andreas Schwob (thschwob) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Package choosing logic configurable Initial Comment: Currently an ejb implementation which is in a package ending in ejb or beans creates automatically the home and remote interfaces in a package interfaces on the same level as ejb. This behaviour should be configurable, giving a possibility to indicate where to put the generated interface files. Reason: We have long time ago setup a package hierarchy which places EJBs in ejb subpackage. We have quite an amount of beans. But we want to have the home and remote interfaces in the same ejb subpackage. There is no way to prevent Xdoclet from not putting the interfaces in the interface subpackage. So we have to manually copy interface files and rename the package names and references of the fully-qualified class names in these files. Therefore we tried to write an ant target which does this. Actually this task is quite difficult and we didn't get it to work yet (in a shell script it would be easier but we work in distributed teams on different operation systems so we need one OS independent script language which is ant). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Andrew Stevens (stevensa) Date: 2001-10-30 15:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=247081 There already is a way to specify where to put the generated interfaces etc. Just use the "package" (or "remote-package" and "local-package") attributes on the @ejb:interface etc class level tags. I use this to put the home/remote/pk/dataobject classes in e.g. the foo.bar.services.X package while the bean and session/cmp/bmp classes go in the foo.bar.services.X.implementation package. You could probably also use these parameters to put the interfaces in the same package foo.bar.ejb as the implementation classes, but this is a bad idea - keeping them separate makes it easier to build client jars. See also the section in the documentation on "package choosing logic". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=402707&aid=476515&group_id=31602 _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
