RE: Re: [Objectbridge-jdo-dev] jdo extension format

[<tr...@th...>]

Doh!  ;-)

That's not very good.  Although having it the way we specified shouldn't harm anything should it?  

Be a pain to use the key/value pair when having an extension like this:

 <extension vendor-name="ojb"
		platform="hsqldb"
   		jdbc-level="2.0"
   		driver="org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver"
   		protocol="jdbc"
   		subprotocol="hsqldb"
   		dbalias="../OJB"
   		username="sa"
   		password=""
		/>

Travis

---- Original Message ----
From: Sebastian Kanthak <seb...@mu...>
Sent: 2002-05-26
To: obj...@li...
Subject: Re: [Objectbridge-jdo-dev] jdo extension format

Hi Travis,

On Sunday 26 May 2002 02:10, tr...@th... wrote:
> So for consistency's sake, I propose the new names like so:
>
> <extension vendor-name="ojb" table-name="Product"/>
>
> <extension vendor-name="ojb" column-name="stock" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/>

this won't be spec compliant as the DTD definition for extension is:

<!ELEMENT extension (extension)*>
<!ATTLIST extension vendor-name CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST extension key CDATA #IMPLIED>
<!ATTLIST extension value CDATA #IMPLIED>

so, it would have to be more like this:

<extension vendor-name="ojb" key="table-name" value="Product"/>

Note, that you can nest extension-elements if this should be necessary to 
match more complex mapping-attributes.

ciao Sebastian

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

_______________________________________________________________

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