RE: AW: [Objectbridge-jdo-dev] jdo extension

[Andy L. <aj...@as...>]

I'm strongly of the opinion that we should rely on the JDO file, and use
the vendor extenions.

> Well the extenstion tag is part of the jdo spec and is for vendor
> specific information.
>
> 18.5 ELEMENT extension
> This element specifies JDO vendor extensions. The vendor-name attribute
> is required. The vendor name "JDORI" is reserved for use by the JDO
> reference implementation. The key and value attributes are optional,
> and have vendor-specific meanings. They may be ignored by any JDO
> implementation.
>
> So my thoughts are that people that want to use JDO, can use the jdo
> file, and the JDO implementation can just setup the ojb metadata
> classes using the jdo information.  This would be in place of
> repository_user.xml, probably not the repository.xml that holds the
> database information.
>
> Travis
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: Mahler Thomas <tho...@it...>
> Sent: 2002-05-23
> To: "'tr...@th...'" <tr...@th...>,
> obj...@so...
> Subject: AW: [Objectbridge-jdo-dev] jdo extension
>
> Hi Travis,
>
> I don't think that its a good idea to replace the repository.xml by a
> .jdo file.
> The JDO spec does not provide any O/R specifics like foreign-keys or
> jdbc-types.
> But these information are needed by OJB!
>
> My suggestion:
> The OJB DescriptorRepository (populated from the repository.xml) does
> contain *all* OJB meta-data.
> We currently use this repository for all OJB runtime metadata
> operations and also for generation of DDL, Java code for persistent
> class and also for generation of repository.xml files.
>
> If we need a *.jdo file to be JDO compliant we should generate it from
> the OJB DescriptorRepository!
> This is rather simple, fits to the existiting OJB metadata architecture
> and it will allow to write 100% spec conformant *.jdo files (as they
> won't need to contain vendor specifics)
>
> cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
>>
>>
>> Just thinking of how to do table mapping in the jdo files and
>> here's my thoughts from sample app:
>>
>> <jdo>
>>  <package name="test.ojb.tutorial3a">
>>   <class name="Product" identity-type="application">
>>   <extension vendor-name="ojb" table-name="Product"/>
>>   <field name="id" primary-key="true">
>>     <extension vendor-name="ojb" column-name="id"/>
>>    </field>
>>    <field name="name">
>>     <extension vendor-name="ojb" column-name="name"/>
>>    </field>
>>    <field name="price">
>>     <extension vendor-name="ojb" column-name="price"/>
>>    </field>
>>    <field name="stock">
>>     <extension vendor-name="ojb" column-name="stock"/>
>>    </field>
>>   </class>
>>  </package>
>> </jdo>
>>
>>
>> I don't think we'll need the jdbc datatypes anymore do we?  feedback?
>>
>> Travis
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________
>>
>> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
>> August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Objectbridge-jdo-dev mailing list
>> Obj...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-jdo-dev
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
> August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Objectbridge-jdo-dev mailing list
> Obj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-jdo-dev


"The heights of genius are only measurable by the depths of stupidity."