+1 on Matt's idea
Maybe we should have a stand-alone tool that can generated a default
configuration for any given jar. This code would also be a good
starting point for migration tool to come later.
-dain
On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
+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
