I'm going to try to get this into cvs shortly, hopefully for 1.2b3 (although I am running out of time). It obviously has more right to be in xdoclet core than the tjdo, solarmetric, lido, etc modules
david jencks On 2003.03.01 15:19 Mingfai Ma wrote: > hi, > > As mentioned before, I posted a suggest to Jire for a generic way to > support > vendor extension. as in: > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/xdoclet/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=X > DT-332 > > I just checked back and see the following reply: > > ~quote~ > Mathias Bogaert [ 27/Feb/03 ] > This is a vendor specific thing, and out-of-scope for XDoclet 1.2. For > XDoclet 2.0, we do NOT support vendor specific tags anymore, this is the > resp of the vendor. > ~end quote~ > > Thanks for the prompt reply first, but I think there is either some > misunderstanding for me to this message, or the person who make this > decision have some misunderstanding on the vendor extension tag of JDO. > (I > really mean "misunderstanding", please read on) Vendor extension is > basically specified as a part of the JDO specification. Currently, > XDoclet > supports JDO vendor extension by making specific modules for each vendor > (open source or commercial). Implement in this way has pro and con. For > pro, > it's good as there is validation. For con, it's not flexible enough as it > requires some works for each vendor. I think Mathias' message is refer to > this. > > However, Sebastian's proposal is not like this. (and I think it's a great > idea) Let me make it clear by giving the code. XDoclet is going to > generate > sth similar to the following: > <extension vendor-name="aaa" key="bbb" value="ccc"/> > current, it is specifed by: > /** > * @jdo.field > * default-fetch-group="true" > * null-value="exception" > * (the above is for reference, vendor extension is in the following > line!) > * @tjdo.field column-length="50" > */ > and we propose to make it as > /** > * ... > * @jdo.extension vendor="tjdo" name="column-length" value="50" > */ > (or whatever similar) > > So, it supports vendor extension *in another way*, a generic way. And no > vendor specific module is required. I originally want to submit a patch > myself, as it's really simple. But from the email, it seems Sebastian has > done it already! (thank you, Sebastian!!!) > > I am pretty sure XDoclet is not really going to abandon the support for > vendor extension, as it is a tool for the developer! If it doesn't > support > vendor extension, it means we can't use XDoclet without manual works to > modify the descriptor, which is a nightmare as we love and addicted to > XDoclet already! :-) > > What do you think? > > Regards, > mingfai > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > xdoclet-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
