Vincent and Ara,

I've submitted a patch for this, made from valueobject.xdt that I just 
brought over this morning, so it should still be valid.

Here is the bug report link:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=581773&group_id=31602&atid=402704

And here is the patch link:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=581778&group_id=31602&atid=402706

Thanks again for your input on this matter,
David

--

Vincent Harcq wrote:
> I agree with Ara for the solution 3.
> 
> Vincent.
> 
> 
>>>>So, I've come up with 4 options, and would like some input:
>>>>
>>>>1) Write my own custom serializers/deserializers for every
>>>
>>valueobject
>>
>>>>that xdoclet creates for me.
>>>>    PRO: No changes necessary to xdoclet.
>>>>    CON: A lot duplicated effort since each valueobject is different
>>>>    CON: Not very maintainable and defeats the purpose of xdoclet.
>>>>
>>>>2) Do the above but with one serializer/deserializer that goes nuts
>>>
>>with
>>
>>>>reflection.
>>>>    PRO: One serializer/deserializer to write and can be used for
>>>
>>all
>>
>>>>valueobjects.
>>>>    CON: Very ugly.
>>>>    CON: Very slow.
>>>>
>>>>3) Change valueobject.xdt so it includes sets for all the gets.
>>>>    PRO: Quick, easy change to xdoclet.
>>>>    PRO: Can use AXIS' Bean(De)Serializer(s) out-of-the-box.
>>>>    CON: The valueobject class author I'm guessing purposely didn't
>>>>provide sets for these methods since he'd rather one use
>>>
>>addXXXValue(X);
>>
>>>>this way he can control removing a valueobject from the updated
>>>>Collection when someone calls removeXXXValue(X).  Still, I think
>>>
>>this is
>>
>>>>not horrible and is at the developer's own risk if they call that
>>>>method...  (They should at least LOOK at what XDoclet generates, for
>>>>heaven's sake... ;)
>>>>
>>>>4) Create a new ejbdoclet subtask that will generate custom AXIS
>>>>BeanSerializers/BeanDeserializers for every valueobject that gets
>>>
>>>created.
>>>
>>>>    PRO: Doesn't break the (possible) contract that the original
>>>
>>author
>>
>>>>wanted to maintain inside valueobjects.
>>>>    CON: A lot more work... (java, xdt, possbily new @tags to aggree
>>>
>>on)
>>
>>>>I would prefer option 3, but would settle for option 4.  Either way,
>>>
>>I'm
>>
>>>>willing to be the one to make the changes.
>>>>
>>>>How do others feel about this?
>>>
>>I would go for option 3. But Vincent is the guy who should decide.
>>
>>Ara.





-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user

Reply via email to