db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From e...@jpox.org
Subject Re: dtd property element
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:00:15 GMT
See inline...

> > 1 - Should the field-name attribute be used to generate the field
> > in the class?
>
> No. The intent of the persistent interface is that the JDO
> implementation creates an "anonymous" implementation class. There is
> no requirement to even create a persistence-capable class; it's
> perfectly fine to use dynamic Proxy as a strategy and to not even
> define fields with names.
> >

JPOX is using another strategy. It creates the PersistenceCapable at runtime,
and that's the context for the question.

> > 2 - There is no attribute that defines the binary name of the
> > generated class at
> > runtime. We may need a metadata attribute to allow specifying it,
> > and secondly,
> > we should define a default naming for the generated class if not
> > specified in
> > the metadata.
> >
> > I have two proposals for a default:
> >
> > - <interface-package>.Jdo<interface-classname>
> > - <interface-package>.<interface-classname>Impl
> >
> See above. There is no value in having a persistence-capable concrete
> class visible to the user, as there is no user-visible behavior of
> such a class. The only thing that a user can and should rely on is
> that the persistent properties are available from the implementation
> instance.
>
> It seems that I wasn't clear in my reply below. Probably because
> there are two different uses for persistent interfaces and properties.
>

Yes you were. Sorry for not inputing the context


Mime
View raw message