On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Ben Johnson wrote: > The second issue, and really the bigger design issue to me, is using the > ant subtasks to control application design. If your app uses data > objects, you're going to have dependencies all over your code.
true. > Removing <dataobject> as an ant subtask will totally mess up your app > design, since your remotes won't have the set/get data methods. > Putting those methods in the remote/local interfaces should be a > decision derived from looking at the bean java, not on the structure > of your build.xml. true, hence my suggestion, which is exaclty what you correctly raise as something that introduces dependencies > By my preferences, whether data objects are on or off means that the > people outside the default have a lot of bean changes to make. The > current implementation of xdoclet makes this a one line change to > build.xml, which seems like an efficiency win. However, I think it > damages the elegant premise of xdoclet. But I do concede that what I > interpret as the premise of xdoclet may not match that of the people > coding it. ;) hehe... yeah, I'll see what Ara has to say... as I understand it you are suggesting that adding/removing the dataobject subtask will make no changes unless you have the data object tag(s) in place... sorry to repeat... just wanted to clarify one last (I promise!) time (o: cheers dim ps - love the email addy (o: _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
