Hi jackCHEN,
There has been a discussion previously on whether properties and
comments are the same thing or not. The consensus was that those are
two different things. Comments are actually DB-related artifacts (and
therefore won't probably be attached to any Obj* metadata objects, or
relationships, etc.). Properties are arbitrary strings attached to any
mapping object.
I assumed you are working on the later feature (properties, not
comments)? Also IIRC Andrey was looking at building comment support.
Andrey please correct me if I'm wrong.
Andrus
On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:38 AM, chen li wrote:
> Thanks Andrus. Cayenne is good project and there are a lot of
> genius
> who help it to grow up.
>
> "CayenneMapItem" is just a temporary name. The purpose of the
> class is only providing a set of method which related to comment.
> If the
> function of the class will be expended in future,it can be
> refactored and
> implements a interface which defining the behavior of comment. So i
> think
> the name maybe "CommentMap","AbstractMap", or "MappingObject". Just a
> suggestion.
>
> I think the info Class is necessary to deal with comment.
> Comment is
> a element node which can be added other element node such as
> Obj-Entity,Db-Entity,Obj-attribute etc in a DataMap tree. Any
> element node
> in DataMap Tree can have comment as their sub element node if they
> need. So
> a comment has to record its father element node for be reached when
> the
> whole datamap tree is dealed with.
>
> "Info" name is a temporary name.Maybe "Comment","Annotation"
> are much
> more close.
>
> jackCHEN
>
>
>
> 2009/6/1 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>
>>
>> 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 - 04:46:49 EDT