db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Clute, Andrew" <Andrew.Cl...@etech.ohio.gov>
Subject RE: Read-only Anonymous keys?
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:45:13 GMT

> 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.

Agreed. The new access values is 'ugly' -- it really isn't an access

> > 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.

Great! I do appreciate it.

> > > 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.

Yeah, this is a perfect example. A quasi-trigger attribute. I like it.
It isn't tough at all to add -- I will do first in 1.0 while Armin
finishes up the 1.1 merge, and then will merge it there.



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

View raw message