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

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

Ya, and you can like represent objects and stuff, and it's really cool.  ;-)

Anyways, tried it and yes you are correct.  Breaks.  I was using crimson which obviously does not validate.  Tried xerces and errored.

Ok, so two options I guess:

1: Keep it in .jdo file:

 <field name="stock">
    <extension vendor-name="ojb" key="column" value="stock">
    <extension vendor-name="ojb" key="jdbc-type" value="INTEGER">
   </field>


Or 2: use external repository file and .jdo file.

Maybe a vote?

I'll go +1 on the jdo file (option 1)

Travis

---- Original Message ----
From: Christian Sell <chr...@ne...>
Sent: 2002-05-27
To: obj...@li...
Subject: Re: RE: Re: [Objectbridge-jdo-dev] jdo extension format

> Well what I'm saying is that the xml file is still valid against the jdo
dtd as key/value pair are optional in the extension
> tag and we just extended a tag (which is what xml is all about).

What? XML is all about extending tags??

>So the way we have specified it would not break any implementation and I'm
not even sure if it's out of spec
because it still conforms.

Not true. It does not conform, because you introduced 2 new attributes,
which are not in the DTD. Why dont you just create a sample file and run it
through a validating XML parser so you can see for yourself

regards, Christian


_______________________________________________________________

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