geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:46:31 GMT
	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).


On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> I've had a look at Aarons patch posted to
> While better - it still suffers from trying to provide two inheritance
> trees and only fully implementing one of them.  This works for now because
> we have so few geronimo specific elements in the tree.
> I've been working on the alternatives I have suggested.  Firstly I stand corrected
> that the interface approach is not less code.  It's about the same, what it gains
> in removed duplicate code it looses in the extra interface classes required.
> Again because we have so little geronimo specific config in the tree at the moment,
> it looks a little silly.
> Thus I have gone ahead with the much simpler model of just a single tree
> of geronimo DD POJOs.  I have posted a tar of the code to the issue for
> people to review.  I have also fixed up the naming convention of the classes (Ejb ->
EJB etc.)
> It is compiling and passing the test harnesses - but I'm not sure how good they
> are so I'll do some more testing shortly.
> So I think it is over to people other than Aaron and myself to get some
> feedback.
> cheers
> PS. If somebody is really keen on the standard interface version - I have
> a copy of that which compiles for deployment - but I have not fixed up the rest of the
> code to use it.

View raw message