Re: QueryTable / Non-persisted DataObject [Was: Questions about Ordering, Optimistic Locking and QueryTable]

From: Adrian Wiesmann (awiesman..omap.org)
Date: Tue May 20 2008 - 15:40:25 EDT

  • Next message: Adrian Wiesmann: "Re: Custom Ordering [Was: Questions about Ordering, Optimistic Locking and QueryTable]"

    On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:07:11 -0400
    "Mike Kienenberger" <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:

    > I'm not really sure why you don't use a regular java bean object to do
    > this.

    Because of the base class. I don't want to have my renderer check the
    class to decide how to handle it. What I could try would be to subclass
    from DataObject without having any info in the DataMap. Not sure how
    Cayenne would like that though.

    > However, I believe you could create a DataMap for all of these objects
    > in a separate DataNode. You don't have to create a table for them in
    > the database.

    That could be a solution. Ugly, but still working.

    > You might even be able to get away with having them in the same
    > DataMap, provided you don't try to update/insert/delete them during a
    > commit. There's no requirement that you create an actual table on
    > the database unless you execute sql accessing that table.

    Yes, I thought something like that. But still an ugly solution...

    Cheers,
    Adrian



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue May 20 2008 - 15:41:07 EDT