|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.
Back to the top