geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Boynes" <>
Subject RE: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:57:52 GMT
For those who missed the Jira mail, I have uploaded a derivative of
Aaron's patch that allows the geronimo EJB POJO's (like Session) to
subclass the spec ones and still implement JNDIEnvironmentRefs

This keeps two concrete trees so that tools that only deal with the spec
do not need to understand Geronimo objects but which preserves the type
safety for the subclasses.

I am not convinced we have reached conclusion yet and so would suggest
that if we do start committing thigs they go in a different branch.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gmane Remailer [] On Behalf 
> Of Greg Wilkins
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 1:30 AM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > 	Stepping back a little, the truth is, any of the 
> options on the table 
> > at this point will likely meet the requirements, and I 
> suspect we're 
> > unlikely to reach 100% consensus on the design, so why don't you 
> > either call a vote on which alternative with a time limit, or just 
> > pick a deadline and say if there hasn't been a consensus by then 
> > you'll just pick one and check it in so we can move on from 
> here.  If 
> > you call a vote, it would help if the people voting +1 are 
> willing to 
> > put some time into implementing the code, since we have a 
> fair bit of 
> > DD coverage left (EAR, RAR, and the missing Geronimo schemas).
> I've had a look at your second patch and I'm still not 
> convinced.  So I'm going to apply my 2nd patch first thing 
> tomorrow - unless Jeremy, Dain or other heavy user of the 
> geronimo DDs objects.
> Once we start getting a lot of geronimo configuration added 
> to the DD's then I think it would be a good time to restard 
> the discussion for the support of a standard only POJO tree 
> (either as interfaces or as per your patch).
> Just for the record, the following is what I don't like about 
> your patch 2.
> Take o.a.g.d.m.e.Entity for example.  It now reads:
> public class Entity extends 
> org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model.ejb.Entity {
>      private String jndiName;
>      public String getJndiName() {
>          return jndiName;
>      }
>      public void setJndiName(String jndiName) {
>          this.jndiName = jndiName;
>      }
>      public SecurityRoleRef[] getGeronimoSecurityRoleRef() {
>          return (SecurityRoleRef[])super.getSecurityRoleRef();
>      }
>      public SecurityRoleRef getGeronimoSecurityRoleRef(int i) {
>          return (SecurityRoleRef)super.getSecurityRoleRef(i);
>      }
> }
> So you have added Geronimo casting methods for 
> SecurityRoleRef, but you really need to add the same for all 
> the Geronimo types:
>    EjbRef, EjbLocalRef, ServiceRef, ResourceRef, 
> ResourceEnvRef, MessageDesinationRef
> Also it is not sufficient for type safety to just provide the 
> getters. You need to provide geronimo setters as well so we 
> can get compile time type checking.
> But then it will still be possible for the standard setters 
> to be called, so they probably need to be overriden to make 
> them check the type of the array being set is a geronimo 
> array. Even then, that is only run time type checking.
> Finally I still don't have a geronimo version of 
> JNDIEnvironmentRefs that will allow me to deal with Entity's, 
> Sessions, etc as strongly typed providers of geronimo JNDIRef 
> entities.  All code written to this API will be able to fail 
> at run-time with simple type errors of passing
> in the wrong type of POJO.   As type safety was one of the 
> main drivers
> for going for a POJO DD model, I think this is important.
> regards

View raw message