On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Michael Larionov wrote: > > I'm reading this over and over looking for what I'm missing, 'cause I'm > > almost sure that I've missed something.... but - both solutions create > > <sql-type> and <jdbc-type> tags in the jaws.xml, yes? > > Yes. For different cases though. In my case the fields of dependent > value object should be mapped to database, and for this case I can't > use method-level tags, can I?
ic... sorry... you want to be able to define sql-type and jdbc-type for _dependant value objects_ and what is currently there only supports normal properties? _that_ is what I was missing.... > Totally agree. The solution could be to get rid of @cmp-field alltogether > and instead to introduce the method-level @tags in the dependent value > object. ok - lets have a look at that. other ppl using this functionality - any thoughts on migrating these tags.... I haven't given this much thought yet... might be better off to wait until after the upcoming release... > > [if I've missed the point, this of course isn't relevant] > > > > my thoughts are that for something pertaining to a property of an entity > > bean, it should be declared at the method level. convention saying at the > > accessor method. > > In this case it is something pertaining to a property of a dependent value > object. yes (o: ok - for now... I'll put your patch in, and get it working for dvo. further down the track, might be worth looking at moving the other tags to a method level... but I'm not sure how that would work... not familiar with jvo in jboss. cheesr dim (who is very relieved at having has the missing link explained to him - thankx) _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
