> > And I'm gonna tell you that it's way harder than you think, for
example
> > some vendors (TopLink and websphere for example) support mapping a
> > single field to a combination of many database column, so you
specify a
> > db-field mapper there and it takes care of merging/splitting it. So
> > other than the simple one-field->one-db-column mapping you have more
> > sophisticated one-field->many-db-columns mapping! How are you going
to
> > cover both now in your generic tag? And stuff like that. Tricky....
>
> Yes, this is tricky. But this is what I called in my message "very
> vendor specific". TopLink and WebSphere both support the simple
> one-field->one-db-column mapping, right? So they could both benefit
from
> a generic @ejb:column-name tag. If the programmer needs the advanced
> vendor features, then that's nothing left but to use the
vendor-specific
> tags.
Agree, but we should make it intuitive. Vendor tags shouldn't look like
abnormal second class citizens. The tag name or tag parameters we choose
also should be generic to cover concepts of different application
server.
And there's other issues too, for example finder queries. You define
ejb-ql in ejb2 but you still can play with the actual sql statement too,
but some servers let you define the WHERE part, some also allow you to
define the whole statement and some only let you define only the whole
statement! It's getting tricky really and remember in this case though
we may have a generic @ejb:finder sql-query="" or where-statement="" but
the conventions used are different, for example app server x uses $1 to
designate query parameters and the other one uses {0} and maybe expects
something speciall in query. I've seen these kind of differences in
Orion/WAS/etc. So though the tag and parameter names are standardized
but you should be able to define not just one of them, but many and each
for each app server with different values.
You see you shouldn't go on implementing something with closed eyes.
Analyze different app servers and make sure it covers at least the needs
of most of them or the important ones. I absolutely approve and
encourage this effort; we should start from somewhere, right? So start
it from somewhere/some tags and we'll discuss it case by case.
PS: I'm feeling like being in a DB/spec standardization committee ;-)
What we're doing is exactly that :-)))
Cheers,
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
