Re: Pre-insert callback?

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Wed Mar 18 2009 - 06:57:35 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Gentry: "Re: Pre-insert callback?"

    I agree, it doesn't technically prevent us from adding more... What I
    feel bad about is the design falling apart. We already have
    validateFor..., JPA callbacks, and now we'll have a third kind :-/
    This turns Cayenne into Perl... Almost envy the Tapestry people for
    pulling the plug on backwards compatibility in the sake of consistency
    of the user-facing components.

    Andrus

    On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:

    >
    > On 18/03/2009, at 8:47 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
    >
    >> After the initial excitement about JPA callbacks, now I feel like
    >> they are not all that flexible (not in the context of Cayenne
    >> anyways). At this point I won't suggest deviating from the JPA
    >> spec... Unless we entertain the possibility to bag JPA as a goal
    >> completely, instead of saying "we'll give it another try after
    >> 3.0". But until we "officially" make any such decision, we are
    >> bound by the spec in some of the features.
    >
    > That doesn't stop us adding more callbacks in addition to the JPA
    > ones. Just because we want to keep those, doesn't mean we can't have
    > more useful ones as well. Certainly in ROP the existing callbacks
    > are even less useful. It would be nice to have some useful points of
    > access on both the client and the server.
    >
    > Ari
    >
    >
    >
    > -------------------------->
    > ish
    > http://www.ish.com.au
    > Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
    > phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
    > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 18 2009 - 06:58:09 EDT