Win a copy of Learn Spring Security (video course) this week in the Spring forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

HFE book, p.433

 
cyril vidal
Ranch Hand
Posts: 247
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi,
I don't agree with sidenote of question 9.
Question:
Which are valid values for a cmr-field-type element?

Answer:
Either a local interface type, or a Collection or a Set of the local interface type

Isn't the first answer local interface type incorrect? To my sense, cmr-field-type may not contain a simple local interface type as value: in this case, we should use element <cmr-field-name>, shouldn't we?
Regards,
Cyril.
[ January 15, 2004: Message edited by: cyril vidal ]
 
Keith Rosenfield
Ranch Hand
Posts: 277
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Cyril:
I also don't think the side note is correct. The following can be found in the spec in section 10.3.13
The cmr-field-type element must be specified if the type of the cmr-field is java.util.Collection or java.util.Set.

I don't see what local interface types have to do with anything. They don't belong in the cmr-field-name element as you suggest. What belongs in the cmr-field-name element is clearly stated in the deployment descriptor dtd as follows, found in the spec in section 22.5
The cmr-field-name element specifies the name of a logical relation-ship field in the entity bean class. The name of the cmr-field must
begin with a lowercase letter. This field is accessed by methods whose
names consist of the name of the field specified by cmr-field-name in
which the first letter is uppercased, prefixed by �get� or �set�.

I hope this helps.
 
cyril vidal
Ranch Hand
Posts: 247
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Keith,
I don't see what local interface types have to do with anything. They don't belong in the cmr-field-name element as you suggest. What belongs in the cmr-field-name element is clearly stated in the deployment descriptor dtd as follows, found in the spec in section 22.5

you're totally right and i was totally wrong
Thanks for this precision,
Cyril.
 
Yi Meng
Ranch Hand
Posts: 270
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think the side note is there just to let you know that the cmr field type can be a local componet interface or a Set/Collection of the interface.
But you know that you don't have to specify in the DD if the type is a local componet interface, the container will somehow figure out itself.
 
Keith Rosenfield
Ranch Hand
Posts: 277
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Yi.
Originally posted by Yi Meng:
I think the side note is there just to let you know that the cmr field type can be a local componet interface or a Set/Collection of the interface.

The question does not ask what type can a cmr field be but what are valid values of the cmr-field-element. The side note in this case is misleading since local interface type is not a valid value of this element. Only java.util.Collection or java.util.Set are valid. Although it's true that cmr field types can be a local component interface, as you state.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic