db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Dudziak <tom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Read-only Anonymous keys?
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:41:02 GMT
On 8/27/05, Clute, Andrew <Andrew.Clute@etech.ohio.gov> wrote:

> I originally had the same thought, but was afraid of introducing such a
> change in the 1.0 line (as I have an immediate need for it). I think it
> is the right solution to separate them.
> If no one has an issue in this happening in the 1_0 release line, then I
> will do it now.

Personally I'd prefer the separation over the new access value. As
long as 'anonymous' still works for access (with a deprecation
warning) it should be ok IMO.
> Tom, do you mind updating the xdoclet module to accommodate this change?
> I can take a look at it if not, but the seems to be a fair amount of
> ramp up time in making changes in the xdoclet code. I will let you know
> when I am about to commit these changes, so we can try to time the
> commits of this, and the xdoclet module at the same time.

Yep, I can do that sometime during the next week, I think.

> > Btw, would it make sense to add a writeonly access type
> > (which isn't queried, only inserted/updated) ?
> I can't see an immediate usecase for this, but it seems to make sense.
> I would hate to limit someone's mapping by leaving this off, as it seems
> valid, and easy to implement.

Image for instance an object where the date and time of the last
change shall be stored in the database (eg. for tracing). If the
application has no need for this info, there could be a writeonly
attribute backed by a getter method that simply returns the current
date and time.

Anyway, if it is easy I think we should support it ? (at least in 1.1)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message