geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: CMP Field Mapping Required?
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:14:25 GMT
	The JSR-88 tool kind of does this (/ will do this) as a side
effect.  When you run it, the DConfigBean tree initializes itself from the
DDBean tree, meaning creating a Geronimo EJB defintion matching every J2EE
EJB definition, a Geronimo resource reference matching every J2EE resource
reference, etc.  I think we'd have to actually go out of our way to drop
empty definitions before saving to disk.  Though we also need to figure
out what to do if there are required elements that we can't "guess" -- I
suppose we'll have to drop those before saving if the user doesn't
populate them.

	The nice things about this kind of approach is that you have to 
click a button or whatever to cause the save, and then presumably you get 
to pick the file name.  One of the things that irked me about Orion/OC4J 
was that it would write out whatever it thought your deployment plan ought 
to be in some cryptic location, and use that instead of what you provided.

Aaron

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> +1 on Matt's idea
> 
> Maybe we should have a stand-alone tool that can generated a default  
> configuration for any given jar.  This code would also be a good  
> starting point for migration tool to come later.
> 
> -dain
> 
> On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > 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" <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
> > To: <dev@geronimo.apache.org>
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message