|
Hi,
I'm
not sure if this has been answered. Could not find anything in
the
archives, so here goes.
With
version 1.2 of xdoclet .... the tags have changed. Example
below:
@ejb:remote --> @ejb.remote
I have
downloaded the 1.2 jars, and in looking over the xdt
templates,
they
still use the old ":" notation when looking for tag names.
Questions:
1. I
am assuming that the XDoclet engine still resolves the old tag
names
from
the xdt templates. Is that correct ?
2.
Does XDoclet resolve the new tag names ? i.e. if I were to look
for
"ejb.remote" as opposed to "ejb:remote", would XDoclet
still put the information
into
the template ?
Thanks,
Raju
Hi,
We're trying to get XDoclet to build slightly
customised value objects without getting into writing our own, and we've got a
bit stuck.
What we have is an entity bean A related using
CMR to another entity bean B. The primary key of B is a URL, so the CMR
relationship uses this URL to relate an instance of A to the instance of B
(many A to one B).
What we want to be able to do is to create a
value object for an A bean on our web tier including (amongst other things)
the URL to the B bean that the A bean is related to, and use this value object
to create a new instance of A that is automatically related to the correct
instance of B (as identified by the URL in the value object). The B beans are
all already set up, so we can guarantee that the URL will be a valid foreign
key.
The problem is, the URL foreign key isn't a CMP
field in A, it's a CMR-managed field. XDoclet therefore doesn't include it by
default in the value object it creates for A.
Even though the URL isn't strictly a field in A,
it effectively is (we're trying to hide the existence of B beans from our
external object model). Effectively there's a "derived" field in A that is the
URL foreign key to the related B. The B bean just contains more information
about the URL that isn't relevant in the normal course of things.
What we're wondering is: is there any way we can
tell XDoclet to include in the value object another field that is just the
literal foreign key for our CMR relationship? Or, alternatively, can we fill
in a field in the value object by dereferencing the CMR relationship and just
passing the URL extracted from the B bean at the far end?
If we can't solve this we either have to write
our own value objects or start passing B value objects around with the A ones,
neither of which is very attractive - so any help gratefully
received.
Cheers,
-- Simon and Brian
| 