geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Wilkins <>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 03:11:03 GMT


I tried to let this one go... but I can't... one more try :-)

Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>Or are you saying that we just just don't have a geronimo.ejb.EJB class
>>and multiple implement it's methods in geronimo.ejb.Session,
>>geronimo.ejb.Entity etc.
> 	Yes, I'm saying skip the geronimo.ejb.EJB.  It would currently
> have no properties beyond what ejb.EJB has, and later would support only
> the most basic (pool size perhaps?). 

But that does not work, because geronimo.ejb.EJB is need to provide
implementation of all the standard methods that return the geronimo
specific versions of EJBRef etc.

If we don't have geronimo.ejb.EJB, then we have to implement most the
methods in most of the classes.

>>Note that as the Geronimo instances are the only concrete ones,
>>then we will always be creating Geronimo objects.  Thus I would
>>propose that the standards interfaces do not have setters, only
> 	That is clearly unacceptable.  You say above that I can use the 
> J2EE interfaces to edit J2EE DDs, and below that the J2EE interfaces have 
> no setters.

Why?  We are writing geronimo code, so what it the problem with
creating geronimo versions of the DD POJOs?   If you don't want to
do anything with the non-standard elements then don't set them and
don't render them in the XML.

Note that jeremies current proposal has no difference between
the standard and vendor DD's anyway!

> 	But that aside, I still disagree with this approach.  You're
> adding a whole lot of complexity and baggage to save yourself the writing
> of getJndiName in more than one place.  This is silly.  Of the properties
> that need to go in the Geronimo classes, about 5% would go in "EJB", as
> opposed to 95% in "Session", "Entity", or "MessageDriven".  If you just 
> leave out geronimo.ejb.EJB, then all these problems go away.

No - the reason that the geronomo classes exist is to provide typed versions
of the methods, so you don't have to cast to the geronimo specific instances
all the time. If we are happy with untyped interfaces - then let's just use DOM!

I think my proposal is actually removing code and complexity.  We will only have
concrete implementations for of geronimo objects. There will be no
standards only implementations, no copy constructors to convert standard
to geronimo, no casting, no type checking before casting, no marshalling
code for standard only, etc.

I am sure that we could get by without a standard version of the DD POJOs
and only use the G DD POJOs. But having the standard interfaces is less code
that we have already and at least gives a good indication of what's standard
and what's not.

It seams bizarre to me that on one hand we are trying to merge the
standard and vender XML into a single file, but on the other we are
keeping separate implementations of the elements as POJOs???


View raw message