[
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.