On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> Jack is an intern at ish who has been working on this task. We
> discussed the basic design strategy and class structure, and Jack
> has put together some code.
Great! Jack, welcome to the community :-)
> We'd like some feedback about the approach, especially the idea of
> superclassing the CayenneMapItems to allow for the code to live in
> one place.
I am ok with a common superclass of mapping objects. I don't like the
CayenneMapItem name though. We have no current notion of "CayenneMap",
so "CayenneMapItem" is confusing (not that I am happy with the name
DataMap, heh :-)). Maybe something like MappingObject, which feels
more generic along the lines of "Object Relational Mapping"?
Also I am not sure we need a special Info object. A simple Map<String,
String> attached to a MappingObject should be enough from what I see.
The current Info object has a notion of a parent. Could you elaborate
why is it a tree structure?
"Info" name is a bit confusing, at least to a Java programmer (I know
it was used in EOF). Everywhere else in Cayenne a similar unstructured
String data attached to an object is called "property". I suggest we
stick with this naming convention.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Jun 01 2009 - 02:58:12 EDT