OK. Let's then just move out to DataObjectUtils (or other helper class)
those read/write generic methods
2009/11/19 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
> 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
>>
>
>
-- Andrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Nov 19 2009 - 08:55:55 EST