geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matt Hogstrom" <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: CMP Field Mapping Required?
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:39:43 GMT
Regarding the DDL I think we should probably generate the DDL and pop it in the ejb module
that it was generated for (perhaps in the META-INF directory).  I prefer this approach as
many DBAs do not like the idea of the infrastructure creating tables and prefer to do this
themselves.  At least having our initial view of the DDL would help the DBAs out.  I'm +1
on the dynamic creation as for the developer it makes their lives a lot easier.

- Matt 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dain Sundstrom" <dain@iq80.com>
To: <dev@geronimo.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: CMP Field Mapping Required?


> +1 to Gianny's idea
> 
> Maybe we can had a "guessed" flag on all the implicit settings in the  
> DConfigBeans.   Then if someone sets it by hand we clear the flag.   
> I'm guessing this might not be practical, but it would be cool if it  
> could be done.
> 
> -dain
> 
> On Jul 1, 2005, at 10:00 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > Also, I think that we need to clearly display a warning message  
> > when an implicit mapping is infered.
> >
> > I also think that the underlying database schema should be  
> > automatically created upon deployment, if explicitely requested.  
> > And a standalone tool should be provided to generate a DML script.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gianny
> >
> > On 2/07/2005 4:39 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >
> >
> >>     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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
Mime
View raw message