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

[Sebastian K. <seb...@mu...>]

Hi,

On Thursday 23 May 2002 10:49, Mahler Thomas wrote:
> 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)

well, a spec conformant jdo-file may contain vendor-extensions, this is 
covered by the spec. Of course, the semantics of these extensions isn't 
specified.

A jdo file is required by the jdo-spec and it must contain all 
persistent-capable classes at least. It can, however, contain as many 
vendor-extensions as you want.

I think it would be a greate feature, if such a simple jdo file (without any 
ojb extensions) would be sufficient to run ojb-jdo. This would make it much 
easier to change from any jdo-implementation to ojb and vice-versa. Table and 
column names could be filled with default values, if nothing is specified. Of 
course, one can override this in a way similar to what Travis proposed, if 
one has to match an existing schema.

So my suggestion would be to generate all meta-data out of the jdo-file, 
using default values where something isn't specified via an extension.

Of course, this has something to do with your point of view: Do you want to 
use ojb and see jdo as a nice feature, or do you want to use jdo and see ojb 
as one (of many other) implementations...

Perhaps, both approachs could be supported.

ciao Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian Kanthak    |    seb...@mu...