cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrey Razumovsky <razumovsky.and...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Plans for the future (aka 3.1 roadmap)
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:26:06 GMT
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 <andrus@objectstyle.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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message