I agree, it doesn't technically prevent us from adding more... What I
feel bad about is the design falling apart. We already have
validateFor..., JPA callbacks, and now we'll have a third kind :-/
This turns Cayenne into Perl... Almost envy the Tapestry people for
pulling the plug on backwards compatibility in the sake of consistency
of the user-facing components.
Andrus
On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
> On 18/03/2009, at 8:47 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> After the initial excitement about JPA callbacks, now I feel like
>> they are not all that flexible (not in the context of Cayenne
>> anyways). At this point I won't suggest deviating from the JPA
>> spec... Unless we entertain the possibility to bag JPA as a goal
>> completely, instead of saying "we'll give it another try after
>> 3.0". But until we "officially" make any such decision, we are
>> bound by the spec in some of the features.
>
> That doesn't stop us adding more callbacks in addition to the JPA
> ones. Just because we want to keep those, doesn't mean we can't have
> more useful ones as well. Certainly in ROP the existing callbacks
> are even less useful. It would be nice to have some useful points of
> access on both the client and the server.
>
> Ari
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 18 2009 - 06:58:09 EDT