[Middlegen-user] Re: AW: [Xdoclet-user] Error Message "Tried to set 30th parameter"

[a***@netcom.no]

Well, it wasn't Andreas who wrote the code. -It was Middlegen. I'm
afraid it isn't that smart yet. Middlegen should definitely have a way
to decide whether or not a field should occur in an ejbCreate method.
I'll add it as a feature request.

(this thread was moved from xdoclet-user to middlegen-user)

Aslak

----- Original Message -----
From: ***@pdv-online.de
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2002 9:26 am
Subject: AW: [Xdoclet-user] Error Message "Tried to set 30th parameter"

I don't know about this error, on the other hand though it doesn't
make much
sense to me to have so many parameters for ejbCreate. For
performance and
convenience you should only set a few ( the most necessary)
parameters in
ejbCreate and set the others later via the individual set methods
(if using
local interfaces). Otherwise trying to pass in a data transfer
object (value
object) to ejbCreate might make more sense, also concerning
maintainability.This is also mentioned in a few J2EE/EJB design
patterns sources I've come
across.
Later,
Bernhard

[Andreas Langman]

We need every mandantory field from database as parameter in
constructor. The optional fields should not appear and will be set using
the "setters".

thanks,

Andreas Langmann

Post by a***@netcom.no
Well, it wasn't Andreas who wrote the code. -It was Middlegen. I'm
afraid it isn't that smart yet. Middlegen should definitely have a way
to decide whether or not a field should occur in an ejbCreate method.
I'll add it as a feature request.
(this thread was moved from xdoclet-user to middlegen-user)
Aslak
----- Original Message -----
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2002 9:26 am
Subject: AW: [Xdoclet-user] Error Message "Tried to set 30th parameter"

I don't know about this error, on the other hand though it doesn't
make much
sense to me to have so many parameters for ejbCreate. For
performance and
convenience you should only set a few ( the most necessary)
parameters in
ejbCreate and set the others later via the individual set methods
(if using
local interfaces). Otherwise trying to pass in a data transfer
object (value
object) to ejbCreate might make more sense, also concerning
maintainability.This is also mentioned in a few J2EE/EJB design
patterns sources I've come
across.
Later,
Bernhard