Re: [Xdoclet-user] Re: jdodoclet : specification of extension tags

[Andy J. <an...@aj...>]

On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 23:08, David Jencks wrote:
> > The only problem is that they create XML of the form
> > <extension vendor-name="..." key="..." value="...">
> > </extension>
> > 
> > whereas Triactives' JDO baulks at this since it will only allow
> > <extension vendor-name="..." key="..." value="..."/>    !!!
> 
> Really? I thought I'd tested this.  Are you using the jca-patched version
> or the standalone version?  Did you file a tjdo bug?

I am using XDoclet 1.2b3 (well the files are 1.2b4, but still :-) within
Maven, with TJDO 2.0 beta3. I saw some post on one of the TJDO mailing
lists about someone fixing it on their system (version 1.6 of
src/com/triactive/jdo/model/MetaData.java), but since Sourceforge CVS is
practically impossible to get into these days I can't use it til they do
another release. Not reported as a bug since they claim to have fixed it
...

> > > Second question : I have specified the table-name via @sql.table yet
> > > this never appears in the generated JDO metadata file. Any reason why ?
> > 
> > I've seen no evidence that the @sql.field, @sql.table tags are actually
> > used by JDODoclet ... nothing appears in the XML as a result of them. Is
> > it a case of the documentation being wrong and there is another
> > undocumented tag that I am supposed to use to name the DB table and
> > columns ?
> 
> AFAIK this is irrelevant to the tjdo implementation since you can't affect
> the generated schema in any way.  I think these tags may be used in the
> kodo vendor subtask.

Yep, thats my reading of TJDO, except that to get the column names etc
in the descriptors for KODO, I have to use @jdo.class-vendor-extension,
@jdo.field-vendor-extension etc and NOT @sql.field - hence my query why
the documentation has sql.field etc listed at all.

Thx
-- 
Andy