Possible New Feature For Entity Modeler/EOGenerator

From: David Avendasora (webobject..vendasora.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2008 - 09:12:52 EST

  • Next message: James Cicenia: "Re: Where is my error?"

    Mike, other Java Client developers out there, interested bystanders,

    I've got what I think is a new feature request for Entity Modeler and
    Velocity EOGenerator, but I want to throw the idea around here first
    and see what other minds come up with.

    For Java Client projects, a key design concept is to have a common
    Entity class that both the server-side and client-side classes
    extend. Apple mentions it in the old Java Client documentation, and
    I've talked to several others that do use this.

    The problem is that there is no way to really generate this class
    using EOGenerator because there's no way to specify a "common" Class
    in Entity Modeler only Server and Client classes, and EOGenerator
    wouldn't look for it even if it was there. This means that any
    template variable that would print the fully qualified class name
    won't work to generate a common class package. This makes it
    impossible to define relationships and such in the common class. In
    theory, I could leave the defining of relationships and even
    attributes to the server and client classes and simply use key-value
    coding in any methods I add to the common class, but this seems very
    limiting.

    So, here's what I'm proposing:

    - Add a "Common Class Name" to the EOModel Entity definition.

    - Add a "Common Class Attribute" flag to the EOModel Attribute and
    Relationship definitions - maybe not this one, because if it is
    flagged as both a Class Attribute and Client Class Attribute, then
    you can automatically put it in the Common Class.

    - Add a "Common" checkbox (next to the Java and Java Client
    checkboxes) to the .eogen editor that would tell EOGenerator to look
    for the above attributes.
            (really, these should be renamed to (Server and Client, and the
    accompanying text changed, it doesn't make sense as is)

    Am I missing anything?

    Dave



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Feb 06 2008 - 09:14:01 EST