Then what about generic objects?
http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/generic-persistent-class.html
We may end up with 3 types of objects to support instead of 2:
* Real POJO, no framework mandated superlcass
* CDO POJO (for the lack of a better name)
* CDO generic
Andrus
On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
> Not exactly. What we need for future use is class "between" PO and
> CDO. It
> should have DO functionality for easy use, but no values stored in
> hashMap.
> In my vision, this class will replace CDO. It is not nessesarily
> modified PO
> class, as I suggested before, but maybe a new class.
>
> 2009/11/19 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
>>
>> 1. Moving methods from CDO up to PersistentObject, making
>> PersistentObject
>>> implement DataObject.
>>>
>>
>> In fact PO was split from CDO in the past to move it the POJO way
>> (as well
>> as somewhat coincidentally - the ROP way). I don't want to lose
>> that work.
>> So I'd say we simply start supporting CDO in ROP and PO on the
>> server, and
>> let the users decide on their preferred inheritance.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Nov 19 2009 - 08:49:12 EST