> It doesn't look like it is possible to pass DataObjects around unless there
> is some type of custom serializer/deserializer available. In lieu of not
> being able to use DataObjects we will need to be able to create Beans for
> each of the DataObjects that we can then pass around.
>
Well, I don't see why not... you certainly should be able to pass
DataObjects around, though of course they should be in a clean state
when they go out the wire. If you are concerned about the client-end
not having access to the DataObject hierarchy.. well, I wouldn't be.
Remember that the objects are described in the WSDL by "interface".
The client can generate POJO representations of the Cayenne
DataObjects pretty easily. See wsdl2java for more...
... but... maybe you need Cayenne 1.2's Remote Object Persistence :)
Either way, without knowing anything about your architecture or
design, I would guess you could use the DataObjects directly, perhaps
with a little bit of loving to bind incoming objects to a DataContext
in the correct state.
> 1. Is there a way to generate the bean classes from the Cayenne modeler?
You can use a custom superclass template to generate Pojo-like objects
automatically, if you feel it is necessary.
> 2. Is there a way to populate the bean classes from the Cayenne framework?
I've used BeanUtils fairly successfully in the few times when I've
needed to do this. BeanUtils doesn't work 100% of the time, but its
not bad. It depends on the relationships, really.
>
> Ideally the modeler could also generate a set of plain old Java beans that
> could be used in the framework so that they could be populated and
> maintained automatically.
>
Sounds like you want native pojo support. A lot of people want this,
but I for one don't see the big deal about having to inherit from
DataObject -- particularly when you look at the difficulties of not
doing so. Still, it would be a nice thing to have.
Cris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jan 10 2006 - 23:14:49 EST