Thomas Fischer wrote:
I am happy to hear this. Of course we are interested in these patches.
I would guess that the "protected" part of the patch is not problematic to
implement, and also the foreign key part should be ok.
In my opinion, it is a good idea to put the base packages into a
subdirectory. However, I am not so sure about backwards compatibility
there. Probably one would want to make this configurable (preferably via a
configurable package suffix)
Yes, we added an "extensionPackage" field for the classes that extend
the base classes, so our database tag has these fields:
package="project.db.generated"
extensionPackage="project.db"
I do not know how many files you have patched and against which version. If
there are not too many changed files, I would appreciate it if you create
an issue in scarab and append the complete files there (please do not diff
if possible, some velocity templates have changed a bit in the meantime in
cvs). If you prefer it, you can also mail the files directly to me.
I've made an issue in scarab for this:
<http://issues.apache.org/scarab/issues/id/TRQS306> with the 4 changed
files attached.
Regards,
Jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
