On 2003.02.25 16:41 Sebastian Thomschke wrote: > David, > instead of creating separate modules for every jdo implementation, > wouldn't it make more sense to allow a generic @jdo.extension tag with > required text parameters vendor-name, key and value on class and field > level that generates an <extension vendor-name="aaa" key="bbb" > value="ccc"/> ? > > As far as I know is this extension tag part of the JDO specification and > is used to hold vendor specific data.
Well, I more or less thought of this also, but I didn't implement the original jdo tag support or the vendor extensions and didn't want to reimplement it all. Also I think the vendor-specific implementation gives a lot more validation. If you want to look at this and come up with a proposal or patch I'll certainly cooperate. Some people are actually using the current tags so we may want to support both. thanks david jencks > > Regards, > Sebastian > > David Jencks wrote: > > The jdo sample files include tags for tjdo. These are the only vendor > > extensions I tested because tjdo is the only one for which I have any > idea > > what the tags mean:-) > > > david jencks > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > Schon wieder Viren-Alarm? Bei WEB.DE FreeMail ist das kein Problem, > hier ist der Virencheck inklusive! http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021158 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > xdoclet-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
