Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Read-only Anonymous keys?
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:15:47 -0400
Message-ID: <41C2B90B26CA6343A75BF031D9A44E12DF6D93@ODNEXCH2.em.ohio.gov>
Thread-Topic: Read-only Anonymous keys?
Thread-Index: AcWrECjnR1t1szLARHqZE2Lvj/VfaQAGQ7ww
From: "Clute, Andrew" <Andrew.Clute@etech.ohio.gov>
To: "OJB Developers List" <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>

.
>=20
> IMO it would make the most sense to separate the two concerns=20
> (read/write vs. anonymous), eg. by introducing an anonymous=20
> attribute in the field-descriptor element and deprecating the=20
> "anonymous" access value (ie. issue a warning in the log when=20
> its used). Would make the handling in the XDoclet module easier, too.

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.

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.

So we are on the same page, here is how I see the attributes:

access:
 - readonly
 - readwrite (default)
 - writeonly (* more later about this one)
 - anonymous (deprecated -- warning in the log file, set the anonymous
attribute to 'true' and access to 'readwrite'

anonymous:
- false (default)
- true


> =20
> Btw, would it make sense to add a writeonly access type=20
> (which isn't queried, only inserted/updated) ?
>=20

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.

Thoughts?

-Andrew


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