Something I wanted to discuss. I disagree with
org.objectstyle.cayenne.map.ValidationFriendly interface and its
implementation by map classes. Here is why.
Methods in this interface return information that is known to
DataMapValidator already - class name of an object being validated as
well as attribute/entity name accessible via existing API. Methods in
ValidationFriendly clutter map classes API and are very context specific
(context being DataMapValidator). We may generate a description right in
each of the validator private methods and add it as an ivar to
DataMapValidator.Message
... Keep public API crystal clear ...
Sorry, this has been my mantra lately, but I think this will increase
usability and simplify support of the product significantly. I think
that Cayenne coding practices should be a bit different from a normal
business application. Our API is our final product, unlike a normal case
where functionality is judged using a "black box" approach. At least
this is true for cayenne, access, map, query and exp packages. I guess
GUI can use normal "black box" paradigm.
================
On an unrelated note, before we have more specific licensing policies I
suggest that this is removed from the javadoc:
<quote>
Description: Homemade data layer
Copyright: Copyright (c) 2002
Company: Logical Process Inc.
</quote>
Later we will need to add license text to each Java file, but I don't
have this yet.
Cheers
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
- Andrei (a.k.a. Andrus) Adamchik
http://objectstyle.org
email: andrus at objectstyle dot org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 19:04:08 EST