db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JDO2 Annotations
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:06:01 GMT
Hi Matthew,

With hindsight, do you think that this is the right solution? Any  
insights from your implementation and usage experience whether it was  
a good or bad idea?

Craig

On Jul 12, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:

> Xcalia supports option 3, reusing JSRs 220 & 250 annotations and  
> defining additional ones as necessary.
>
> --matthew
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ilan Kirsh <kirsh@objectdb.com>
> To: Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.com>; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
> Cc: JDO Expert Group <jdo-experts-ext@Sun.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:06:55 PM
> Subject: Re: JDO2 Annotations
>
> After reviewing Andy's proposal and the relevant page on JPOX website
> I vote for:
>     2. Define a complete set of annotations - based on JPOX current  
> work
> And IMO, this should be a required feature.
>
> Ilan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig L Russell" <Craig.Russell@sun.com>
> To: <jdo-dev@db.apache.org>
> Cc: <jdo-experts-ext@sun.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: JDO2 Annotations
>
> > Javadogs,
> >
> > Please take a look at this proposal by Andy.
> >
> > High order bit: The expert group needs to make a decision whether  
> to:
> >
> > 1. Not define any annotations, leaving it up to implementations to
> > decide what to do
> >
> > 2. Define a complete set of annotations
> >
> > 3. Track JSR 220 and JSR 250 annotations for persistence and mapping
> > and add only annotations for JDO that are not already covered by the
> > other annotation specifications
> >
> > Orthogonal to the above, we need to decide whether support of
> > annotations for implementations that support JDK 1.5 is required or
> > optional.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On Jul 4, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
> >
> >>> For information, you can find an initial (top-level) set of
> >>> suggested JDO2
> >>> annotations at
> >> http://jpox.cvs.sourceforge.net/jpox/JPOX/Plugins/Java5/src/java/
> >> org/jpox/annotations/
> >>
> >> Since it's all quiet on annotations I'll provoke further :-)
> >> The above link now shows an almost complete set of proposed JDO2
> >> annotations
> >> (I changed "PersistentField" to "Field" to match the metadata
> >> element). The
> >> advantages of matching annotations to metadata element are
> >> obvious ... people
> >> don't need to relearn the terms they already know from metadata.
> >> The only
> >> places where I haven't stuck to this are the top-level
> >> PersistenceCapable,
> >> PersistenceAware annotations (since they make more sense, to me)
> >>
> >> The only elements missing are Index, ForeignKey, Unique (i'll add
> >> these soon),
> >> Interface, Property (which are low interest for me) and the
> >> recursive aspects
> >> of FetchGroup and Embedded (which are restricted due to annotations
> >> JDK1.5
> >> design). Needless to say that these are all supported in the latest
> >> JPOX
> >> nightly builds where you could actually use them interchangeably
> >> with your
> >> metadata, or JPA annotations, or indeed your own set of annotations
> >> if you
> >> feel like it.
> >>
> >> Comments are welcome. Really.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andy
> >
> > Craig Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ 
> products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message