Hi Jack, Ari
Finally had some time to look at the patch. It is moving in the right
direction, but there are still some issues we need to address:
* DataMapElement ... While the name itself sounds ok, this implies
that the DataMap itself can't be a DataMapElement. In 3.0 we do have
some simple code generation capabilities for DataMap, so adding
properties to the DataMap seems appropriate. So maybe come back to the
idea of MappingObject? (also see the next point).
* Making AbstractQuery extend from DataMapElement may or may not be
ok, but note that not all queries that can be mapped extend
AbstractQuery. In fact I'd like to get rid of this inheritance going
forward... So looks like the whole DataMapElement/MappingObject should
be an interface anyways.
* DataMap: private List<String> propertyKeyList - I don't understand
this one, and it is encoded in the XML. Before we add that to the
schema, could you please explain why it should be there?
* Patch for the schema includes the entire file. It is not clear what
was changed there.
* DataMapElement.Property inner class... Why is this an inner class?
It is exposed via public methods to the end users, so let's make it a
standalone class. Also if there is a notion of properties order in the
element (is there?), I guess the property should be stored in the
list. If there's no notion of
* Property.getHolder() is not used anywhere. Let's not add API we
don't need. Also since we have lots of DataMapElements in the DataMap,
and only some will have properties, let's use lazy initialization of
the map to save some memory.
I also have some notes on the Modeler, but I suggest we settle on the
core framework approach first, and do incremental patches. It is much
easier to review and discuss things in small manageable pieces.
Andrus
On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> [Let's take this to a separate thread.]
>
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:33 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
>> Back on dev topics, Jack has finished his secondment at ish now and
>> posted his DataMapElement.Property implementation. I'll do some
>> cleanup on it (mostly naming and style) and some commenting and
>> commit it unless anyone has something to say.
>
>
> Could you please let it sit in Jira for some time. I'd like to
> review it, but can't do it right this second.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Jun 15 2009 - 04:13:29 EDT