> > - Something we still don't provide: useful defaults. For example you > > should be able to pass a bean source that has no @ejb: tags and get > > everything generated. > > *Everything* generated? But isn't the most likely reason for there being > no @ejb: tags that it's legacy code, for which you'd already have > everything you want?
Not everything really! But let's say you have a stateless session bean and you forgot to include @tags. Because defaults exist you get a remote intf and a home generated for you plus an entry in deployment file. For other beans like entities you won't find finders or create methods generated, so you'll know it's missing and will add it. I'm a lazy guy, I forgot to add @tags but at least I have something generated for me using defaults! :o) It's a common thing in visual age, if you only write your bean code but forget to specify ejename/jndi/etc some defaults are extracted from your source. > I don't think it's unreasonable that you have to include some XDoclet tags > (e.g. @ejb:bean) in an EJB if you want XDoclet to do anything with it. > Plus, if XDoclet ignores classes without any @ejb: tags, I can carry on > using <include name="**/*.java"/> for my ejbdoclet fileset even though > others are creating EJBs in the same source tree using other tools. You mean ejbdoclet should only process files that have an @ejb:bean in them. What's wrong with <include> approach? Ara. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
