FetchField cleanup in annotations

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

Now that we've rationalized the foreign keys, can we take another  
look at the FetchField?

We added the field name to Field for embedded. Can we add  
recursionDepth as well? Then instead of this:

@FetchGroup(fields={@FetchField(name="line", recursionDepth=2)}

we would have this:

@FetchGroup(fields={@Field(name="line", recursionDepth=2)}

It's a minor point, but I sorta hate to have an additional FetchField  
annotation if it isn't needed.

And can we fix the nested FetchGroup problem by adding an element to  
FetchGroup:

String[] fetchGroups() default {};

since we use the names of fetch groups elsewhere and only use the  
FetchGroup annotation to define the group.

So, proposal:

1. Add recursionDepth to @Field.

2. Remove @FetchField.

3. Change @FetchGroup     FetchField[] fields(); to    Field[] fields();

4. Add to @FetchGroup String[] fetchGroups() default {};

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Re: FetchField cleanup in annotations

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

Just one more observation.

In addition to adding recursionDepth to @Field we should add it to  
@Property.

And add Property[ ] properties() default {} to FetchGroup.

That should cover nested FetchGroup and properties as well.

Looking again at <fetch-group> it doesn't look like the intent was  
actually to nest fetch-group but to allow references to embedded  
fetch-group by name, with the actual definition elsewhere.

Craig

On Jul 17, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Now that we've rationalized the foreign keys, can we take another  
> look at the FetchField?
>
> We added the field name to Field for embedded. Can we add  
> recursionDepth as well? Then instead of this:
>
> @FetchGroup(fields={@FetchField(name="line", recursionDepth=2)}
>
> we would have this:
>
> @FetchGroup(fields={@Field(name="line", recursionDepth=2)}
>
> It's a minor point, but I sorta hate to have an additional  
> FetchField annotation if it isn't needed.
>
> And can we fix the nested FetchGroup problem by adding an element  
> to FetchGroup:
>
> String[] fetchGroups() default {};
>
> since we use the names of fetch groups elsewhere and only use the  
> FetchGroup annotation to define the group.
>
> So, proposal:
>
> 1. Add recursionDepth to @Field.
>
> 2. Remove @FetchField.
>
> 3. Change @FetchGroup     FetchField[] fields(); to    Field[]  
> fields();
>
> 4. Add to @FetchGroup String[] fetchGroups() default {};
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!