Yeah, something like that. Also Cayenne's own object access since 3.0
is fully based on pluggable ClassDescriptors, so declaring read/
writeProperty on the object is not needed for Cayenne, and technically
only the generic objects need such user-facing methods.
Andrus
On Nov 19, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
> So you suggest to use simple fields as properties? Makes sense. We
> could
> stay in same DataObject interface as now. Then read/writeProperty
> methods
> would work through reflection.. I agree this will make classes more
> POJO-like
>
> 2009/11/19 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>
>> Actually with Hessian it may be only marginally larger with HashMap
>> (IIRC
>> how it does map serialization). With Java serialization it will be
>> significantly larger, as it likely serializes all the hash bucket
>> structure.
>>
>> In any event, like I said in another thread, if we are to reconcile
>> the
>> object structures between ROP and regular Cayenne, I'd rather we
>> move closer
>> to POJO instead of away from it (with important exception being
>> support for
>> generic objects). POJO's take less memory, have no threading issues
>> and are
>> generally easier to understand by the users.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
>>
>>> We wanted lighter POJO on the client.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure serialization speed/size for Hessian/java
>>>> serialization
>>> will be
>>> better for class with 10 attributes than class with one HashMap
>>> attribute,
>>> *probably* containing those attributes? (and why?)
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Nov 19 2009 - 05:37:41 EST