+1 That's how WebSphere operates on a "vanillia" ejb-jar. Makes life a lot easier. It only get's tough when you have to do meet-in-the middle mapping. What would be even nicer would be to accept an ear with no deployment information and generate plans with the defaults like this. So, for instance, if I wanted to deploy xyz.ear with myejb.jar a deployment plan for the ear would include the OpenEJB DDs with default values populated. Then even meet-in-the middle mapping would be a piece of cake.
- Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Mulder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:39 PM Subject: CMP Field Mapping Required? > It looks like our intention is that cmp-field-mappings are > required in openejb-jar.xml. That is, a single schema sequence contains > the table name and one or more cmp-field-mappings, which kind of implies > that you can't leave out the cmp-field-mappings, though of course there's > no way for us to force you (via the schema) to include one for each CMP > field in ejb-jar.xml. Also, we do currently throw a deployment error if > you forget a field. > > But I wonder whether this is all necessary. We could just default > the column name to the CMP field name, so you would only need to provide > the mapping if they were different. Likewise, we could default the table > name to the ejb-name and make that optional too. > > What does everyone think about allowing defaults like that? I > think it would be handy for trivial demos/examples, and unlikely to be > used for real apps. All else being equal, I'm happy to support easy > examples. But I'm not sure if people feel like explicit deployment errors > would be better than using defaults if you try to map everything but > forget one. > > Aaron > >
