I don't see a reason to dump it into DataObjectUtils since we don't have
to. :-) I was thinking about something in CayenneDataObject, but that
doesn't seem quite right, either for the same reasoning (although might be
more convenient on users).
As to not having a fetch method in a query class, I'm fine with that. I was
asking for opinions, after all.
Thanks,
/dev/mrg
On 6/4/07, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>
> > Putting it in DataObjectUtils doesn't seem the right place to me.
> > Using your example:
> >
> > DataObjectUtils.objectForQuery(...)
> >
> > returns a DataObject (which makes sense to me, being packaged in
> > DataObjectUtils). Something that returns an int, which can't even be
> > converted into a DataObject, doesn't feel like it should be in
> > DataObjectUtils.
>
>
> I agree that DataObjectUtils becoming a kitchen sink is bad, and
> "DataObjectUtils" name is a bit obsolete anyways, considering that
> "Persistent" is the interface Cayenne stack is dealing with. So
> DataObjectUtils class itself needs some redesign (split QueryUtils
> out of it or something?)
>
> My other point about not adding fetch methods to the query classes is
> still valid though. So we can either push for DataObjectUtils
> redesign now, or use it as a kitchen sink one more time :-)
>
> Andrus
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jun 05 2007 - 09:32:18 EDT