Hi Manu...
Sure I will, and I am very happy to argue your brilliant ideas with you :D
On 2/18/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Mohammad,
Thanks for the answers. What I proposed was that these be
optional. Only if the developer knows that the names are the same/ or
the type convention is followed he will specify the automapping.
Otherwise he needs to do the mapping himself.
I totally agree with you that it should be in the tools project, and
you are right I saw it in IBM Websphere RAD :).
I just wanted to get that feature in there somewhere as it is very
convenient during development. Please note it as a feature to be added
in the tools sub-project :).
Thanks
Manu
On 2/18/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Manu...
>
> If you please, as per my knowledge I want to argue your ideas with you.
Your
> ideas sounds great, but IMHO I can tell that it will face some technical
> difficulties, please see my comments on each idea below
>
>
>
> On 2/17/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > As per my knowledge, currently in openejb for mapping of the ejb
> > fields to the database columns we use the jpa.mapping.xml file. Do we
> > still need the cmp.mapping.xml?
>
>
> I think Dain is the one who can answer this
>
> Secondly does oejb have the ability to automatically do the mapping
> > during deployment. eg If the user puts the <automap> tag in the dd
> > then openejb should try to auto map during deployment. Probably the
> > table names need to be mapped by to the EJB by the user if they are
> > different from the ejb names. We can also specify whether the mapping
> > should be by name (ejb fields and table fields)or by type.
> > This should enable openejb to generate the mapping automatically
> > instead of the user specifying them.
>
>
> First regarding mapping EJB Entity bean(s) and their fields using names,
you
> have to make sure that the Database designer is following some naming
scheme
> so OpenEJB can map EJB(s) to table(s) and member field(s) to field(s),
which
> is not the case most of the time, as the Database design is done
parallel to
> the Application design and it has to has no effect on the Application
> design at all.
>
> Second, if we will use types instead of names or with names, we can not
> guarantee that the Database designer or the Application designer are
> following the Java types to Database types *convention* - and take care
> that it is a convention not a standard -, and even, this convention is
not
> valid for all RDBMS, we faced this situation before here at IBM as we
were
> supporting more than one RDMBS, and we found that it is not always the
same
> for all situations.
>
> Some app servers provide this functionality. Is a similar feature there
in
> > OEJB?
>
>
> You are right, and sorry if my opinions above can make you disappointed,
but
> your ideas can be accomplished, but we have to ask our selves, what is
the
> main target of doing this, IMHO it is to make the development task
easier
> for developers, but not so hard for Container developers too :), so we
can
> do the flexibility in another place, which is using Tools - as we
started to
> have our own Tools project .
>
> The current way is called - in terms of IBM WebSphere - *Meet In The
> Middle*, that is you have Database and EJB(s) and you want to map
between
> them, at this situation you have to have a mapping given to the
container.
> Another situation, that is you have a Database and want to create EJB(s)
> based on this Database. Another one when you have EJB(s) and want to
create
> Database based on them. All of these situation, which I think are the
most
> common situations one can have, are supported in a flexible way using
IBM
> tools - whether WAST, RAD, RSA.
>
> To summarize, we have to invest these ideas in the Tools project not in
the
> container it self because the role of the container is to find a mapping
to
> make its job easier and more focused.
>
>
> Regards
> > Manu
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
