Re: superclass template question

From: Cris Daniluk (cris.danilu..mail.com)
Date: Wed May 11 2005 - 13:54:49 EDT

  • Next message: Mike Kienenberger: "Re: superclass template question"

    > The Object will come from DataObjectUtils.pkForObject(), so it'll be
    > in a Cayenne-friendly format already. Maybe I should be
    > using .compoundPKForObject instead? I do have some tables with
    > compound primary keys, but have not used them with this approach yet.

    Err, I'm confused :) pkForObject/compoundPKForObject are one thing and
    objectForPK is another...

    > Based on your feedback, it seems that doing this generically is not
    > the wisest choice, but rather to hand-code in my model subclasses a
    > finder by PK.
    >

    My biggest concern is tackled with a bit of velocity cleverness...
    detecting an entity that has a compound key and changing your method
    signature to require a Map in that case.

    As far as the subclass package, you may be able to get that from
    what's provided to you. Velocity has a macro that is eluding me to
    dump all properties of a bean, so you could use that on your classGen
    and classGen.entity to see what's out there.

    If the subclass package turns out to be unavailable, I can't think of
    a reason why a patch adding it would not be a welcome thing.

    Cris



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed May 11 2005 - 13:54:51 EDT