> > > public <XDtField:fieldType/> <XDtField:fieldName/> = Don't know
> >what
> > > to
> > > write here;
> >
> >Well, about the "Don't know what to write here;" the answer is you can't
> >because javdoc's doclet api doesn't have a method to retrieve that.
> >Hopefully xdoclet's xjavadoc api will let you do that. But for the time
> >being, you can follow Dmitri's proposal (@ejb:interface-constant
> >view-type="local" declaration="String FOO = \"bar\""), though it's ugly
> >imho.
>
> That _is_ ugly. I hope xjavadoc will save the day here too. Until then I do
> some hack.
what's ugly about it? As I understand it, Ara's criticism is over the placement of
constants in an interface. atm, we have
finders:
@ejb:finder query="java.util.Collection findAll()"
I have to say that I dont see what the difference between that and
@ejb:interface-constant declaration="int FUBAR=1;"
sure, if you want string constants its a little different:
@ejb:interface-constant declaration='String FOO="BAR";'
but I dont really understand from what perspective you think its ugly. What I think
is ugly is having the same field declaration in
the bean class as in the interface. Alternatively, Ara's suggestion of using a
constants class is obviously also a perfectly valid
way of doing things.
just another 2c from me (o:
cheers
dim
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
