On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> there already is a CayenneMapEntry interface
The one I'd love to get rid of :-) We discussed that some time ago. It
was poor design back in the day, that now has life of its own.
>> 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.
>
> That's possible, but I'm thinking there might be some additional
> logic which could belong here. For instance, if we reserve some keys
> "javadoc", "annotation" to have special application then we can
> control their use here. And there may also be another attribute in
> the future to prevent some Info objects being passed from server to
> client in ROP.
>
> Also, currently there is no typing (all values are String). But
> there is the future possibility of creating typed values which give
> the user greater validation when entering data in the Modeler.
>
>> "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.
>
> Fair enough. How about MapEntryProperty?
I am still not convinced that we need anything but a String. Remember
in EOF this was called "userInfo", with "user" being the keyword. This
is for people to extend Cayenne in previously unsupported ways. If
*we* decide we need a new property for Entity or Attribute class, we
just add it in a normal Java way. What's the point of a generic Info
object then?
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Jun 01 2009 - 06:10:32 EDT