Re: generics and ObjectContext

From: Kevin Menard (kmenar..ervprise.com)
Date: Tue Nov 20 2007 - 13:39:33 EST

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: generics and ObjectContext"

    Generally I like the idea. The fewer casts I have to make in my code
    afterward, the happier I am. Although, as is, I can make an unchecked
    assignment and forego the cast anyway.

    I think you'll run into issues with a few other queries as well, such as
    NamedQuery and ObjectIdQuery. I guess you could require a new class
    parameter for them, but it wouldn't be backward compatible. Likewise, you
    could force a cast if they're used anonymously, but it's the same problem
    you're trying to fix, just in a different place.

    On 11/20/07 12:02 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:

    > Now that we have a method like this in ObjectContext:
    >
    > <T> T newObject(Class<T> persistentClass)
    >
    > It is tempting to do this as well:
    >
    > List<T> performQuery(Query<T> query);
    >
    > Unfortunately since the same query can be configured to return either
    > objects or DataRows, a fixed definition of "Query<T>" is not
    > possible. At least not with the current query API. Wonder if we
    > should deprecate "setFetchingDataRows(boolean)" and instead use query
    > wrappers for DataRow support. E.g.:
    >
    > SelectQuery<Artist> q = new SelectQuery(Artist.class);
    > SelectQuery<DataRow> q1 = q.createDataRowQuery();
    >
    >
    > Thoughts?
    >
    > Andrus
    >

    -- 
    Kevin Menard
    Servprise International, Inc.
    Remote reboot & power control for network equipment
    www.servprise.com              +1 508.892.3823 x308
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 13:40:09 EST