So where do we put it then? QueryUtils?
Andrus
On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
> 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 - 09:42:17 EDT