On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:51:33 +0200, Steve Ebersole
wrote:
> I have been working mostly on low-hanging fruit
how nice :-)
> More what I had in mind though is:
>
> MetadataImpl(...) {
>// auxiliary database objects are independent
>processAuxiliaryDatabaseObjects(...);
>
>// type d
Seems to make sense from my perspective, but I'm the least familiar with this
code.
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I guess one thing I am interested in is whether you see an issue in this
> style of process with annotations. On the HBM side of things, this will
> work out
I guess one thing I am interested in is whether you see an issue in this
style of process with annotations. On the HBM side of things, this will
work out beautifully. Do you foresee any issues with this on the
annotation side?
On 06/02/2011 02:51 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Hardy, et al.
>
>
Hardy, et al.
I have been working mostly on low-hanging fruit in this metamodel code
getting a handle on the code y'all wrote.
I wanted to discuss one proposal for change in particular. Currently
the ctor for MetadataImpl decides whether to process HBM or annotations
first and then processes
