objectbridge-jdo-dev

[Objectbridge-jdo-dev] jdo extension format

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

Thomas,

with regards to extension naming, i'm thinking that using the ojb repository naming conventions like table vs. table-name won't really match, because you also have column.name and jdbc_type which seems a little inconsistent.

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"/>

It's more descriptive and matches the jdo naming conventions.

Travis 

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

[Thomas M. <tho...@ho...>]

Hi Travis

tr...@th... wrote:

 > Thomas,
 >
 > with regards to extension naming, i'm thinking that using the ojb
 > repository naming conventions like table vs. table-name won't
 > really match, because you also have column.name and jdbc_type which
 >  seems a little inconsistent.
 >
You are referring to the *OLD* repository grammar.
I was talking about the *new* grammar. (See attached dtd-file)
I'm currently patching OJB to use this new grammar!

This file contains the new grammar hopefully free of any syntactic 
inconsistencies.

I strongly recommend to use atribute-names from this grammar like:

<extension vendor-name="ojb" table="Product"/>
<extension vendor-name="ojb" column="stock" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/>

cheers,

Thomas

 > 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"/>
 >
 > It's more descriptive and matches the jdo naming conventions.
 >
 > 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
 >

 >
 >
 >
 >

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

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

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...