[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipselink-users] Best practices for modularity?

Does anybody know the answers?  I tried hacking some stuff together but
haven't met any success.  I really need the answers to 3 and 4 the most.

Thanks,
Polly



amphoras wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm back.  :)  I have been using EclipseLink for OXM, and it has succeeded
> extremely well for my prototype.  Thank you guys for all your help!  And
> congrats on the 1.0 release.  EclipseLink is awesome.  
> 
> Now I need to figure out a general strategy for using EclipseLink OXM in
> our enterprise.  I'm thinking that we will have some mappings that are
> considered "common" and then others that are application-specific and not
> shared.  The common vs. application mappings will be in different projects
> and deployed as different jars.  I can see that it's possible to partition
> the mappings from different projects so that they each have their own
> project.xml fiile, and then you can have one session.xml file that is able
> to work with multiple projects.xml files (we want to define as much as we
> can in the project xml files for easier maintenance).
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 1.  What does it mean to have a "primary" project versus "additional"
> projects in the session?  The documentation talks about how to configure
> these but doesn't really go into the ramifications.  Does the order of the
> projects matter?
> 
> 2.  Is is possible for an application's mappings to override the ones from
> the common project?
> 
> 3.  Is is possible for the common project to define mappings that are
> "abstract" or based on interfaces?  I see that there is an
> XMLChoiceMapping, but I am not sure how to use that because I won't know
> ahead of time what application-specific class I need to use.  I would like
> to have a common POJO that contains composite objects that are defined in
> the application-specific project.  Is that possible?
> 
> 4.  Is is possible to map different root elements to the same POJO?  Or
> can I use a regular expression when matching the root element name?  Our
> schema is defined such that we have root elements with different names
> that have very similar content, so I'd like to be able to map them to the
> same POJO.  From what I've seen from the code, it looks like I will not be
> able to do this directly.  So I think my alternative is to come up with a
> transformation to apply before unmarshalling and after marshalling to
> change the root element name.  Or do you have other suggestions?
> 
> 5.  Can you share any other best practices for implementing a modular
> design with these mappings?
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> Polly
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Best-practices-for-modularity--tp18654654p18718311.html
Sent from the EclipseLink - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.