However since we are on CR1, and other requirements may appear, perhaps it's wise to change the interface definition now than later. :)

Em 25/01/2014, ās 18:58, "Ivan St. Ivanov" <ivan.st.ivanov@gmail.com> escreveu:

Thanks, George! 

As I am not really keen to change the interface definition, I would do it as you proposed: without the project name.

Cheers,

Ivan

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:52 PM, George Gastaldi <ggastald@redhat.com> wrote:

Hey Ivan,

You could change the configure method signature to pass the project as a parameter, but remember that it may be null.

However, I think it would be better to not add the projectName to the DDL file in order to keep it simple and easier to find.

Best Regards,

George Gastaldi

Em 25/01/2014, ās 18:42, "Ivan St. Ivanov" <ivan.st.ivanov@gmail.com> escreveu:

Hi folks,

I am working on https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1443. It's not a big deal, it's a matter of adding a few lines to the JavaEEDefaultProvider class.

One of the requirements is that the create and drop scripts should bear the name of the project: <projectName>Creade.ddl and <projectName>Drop.ddl. I wonder is there a way to pass that somehow to the persistence provider?

Thanks,

Ivan

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev