geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matt Hogstrom" <>
Subject Re: CMP Field Mapping Required?
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:10:20 GMT

That's how WebSphere operates on a "vanillia" ejb-jar.  Makes life a lot easier.  It only
get's tough when you have to do meet-in-the middle mapping.  What would be even nicer would
be to accept an ear with no deployment information and generate plans with the defaults like
this. So, for instance, if I wanted to deploy xyz.ear with myejb.jar a deployment plan for
the ear would include the OpenEJB DDs with default values populated.  Then even meet-in-the
middle mapping would be a piece of cake.

- Matt
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aaron Mulder" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: CMP Field Mapping Required?

> It looks like our intention is that cmp-field-mappings are
> required in openejb-jar.xml.  That is, a single schema sequence contains
> the table name and one or more cmp-field-mappings, which kind of implies
> that you can't leave out the cmp-field-mappings, though of course there's
> no way for us to force you (via the schema) to include one for each CMP
> field in ejb-jar.xml.  Also, we do currently throw a deployment error if
> you forget a field.
> But I wonder whether this is all necessary.  We could just default
> the column name to the CMP field name, so you would only need to provide
> the mapping if they were different.  Likewise, we could default the table
> name to the ejb-name and make that optional too.
> What does everyone think about allowing defaults like that?  I
> think it would be handy for trivial demos/examples, and unlikely to be
> used for real apps.  All else being equal, I'm happy to support easy 
> examples.  But I'm not sure if people feel like explicit deployment errors 
> would be better than using defaults if you try to map everything but 
> forget one.
> Aaron
View raw message