> Class-level:
> @ejb:persistence table-name="foo" datasrouce="jdbc/FooDS"
>
> method-level:
> @ejb:persistence-field column="bar"
Looks good.
Marcus Brito (?), what do you think? Waiting for votes from jboss/etc
gurus....
What do you think about @db:mapping instead of ejb:persistence? We can
support JDO too for example. I really prefer this one.
The other question is how we're going to start implementing it and from
where.
> All the templates should try the app server specific tags first
> (@orion:persistence), but if those tags don't exist, I think they
should
> fall back on these tags.
Agree. The only thing which is worth some thoughts is how to implement
this fallback mechanism so that the template files are not messed up
with lots of if/elses. I'm thinking of enhancing
ifHasClassTag/classTagValue/same-for-methods to accept a comma separated
list of options, so:
<XDtClass:ifHasClassTag tagName="orion:persistence,ejb:persistence"
paramName="table-name,table-name">
table-name = <XDtClass:classTagValue
tagName="orion:persistence,ejb:persistence"
paramName="table-name,table-name"/>
</XDtClass:ifHasClassTag>
Or something like that. orion:persistence has precedence over
ejb:persistence.
> It would be _really_ beneficial to the xdoclet project if these kinds
of
> things were agreed upon.
Yeah, not only to xdoclet but for the whole J2EE community. Right now
ppl are talking about myths of portability between app servers at
theserverside.com and this feature certainly makes it a lot easier to
make portable apps.
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
