Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Message-ID: <1453729726.1228467044389.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 00:50:44 -0800 (PST)
From: "Andy Jefferson (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (JDO-615) MetaData specification API
In-Reply-To: <765362411.1227258524356.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-615?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12653699#action_12653699 ] 

Andy Jefferson commented on JDO-615:
------------------------------------

> InterfaceMetadata extends both Metadata and ComponentMetadata. But 

Good catch.

> ComponentMetadata might include get/setPersistenceModifier since presumably this applies to interfaces as well. 

Not in the DTD it doesn't. Not sure what a "persistence-aware" persistent interface would be :-S

> There are several cases of setXXX that take [...] Then there's no need for setParent either. 

setParent was a hangover from before adding the newXXX, and can go.
setXXX used to distinguish the single-valued child components from multiple-valued child components (newXXX); naming issue. Since some are single-valued I used setXXX since more like a bean property.

> SequenceMetaData

Yes, inconsistent.


Re: priority order.

My use-case that originated this is for classes where there is no file-based metadata. Consequently I've no problem with the wording being around that, so a user can define metadata for a class that has no existing metadata. As a result, a call to pmf.registerMetadata() with something that tries to redefine a class that already has registered metadata would result in a JDOUserException.

> MetaData specification API
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: JDO-615
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-615
>             Project: JDO
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Andy Jefferson
>             Fix For: JDO 2 maintenance release 3
>
>         Attachments: jdometadata-5.patch
>
>
> We can specify MetaData via XML or annotations. The only way missing is via an API. I propose mirroring the XML structure with interfaces of the form
> public interface MetaData
> {
>     addExtension(String key, String value);
>     removeExtension(String key, String value);
>     ...
> }
> public interface FileMetaData
> {
>     addPackage(PackageMetaData pmd);
>     ...
> }
> public interface PackageMetaData
> {
>     addClass(ClassMetaData cmd)
>     ...
> }
> public interface ClassMetaData
> {
>     addField(FieldMetaData fmd)
>     ...
> }
> public interface FieldMetaData
> {
>     setInheritance(InheritanceMetaData inhmd)
>     ...
> }
> and so on.
> We would then require a method on the PMF to register the metadata.
> If there are no objections to such a feature I'll propose a patch to try to provide all current JDO2 capabilities.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.