cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org>
Subject Re: Plans for the future (aka 3.1 roadmap)
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:37:06 GMT
Yeah, something like that. Also Cayenne's own object access since 3.0  
is fully based on pluggable ClassDescriptors, so declaring read/ 
writeProperty on the object is not needed for Cayenne, and technically  
only the generic objects need such user-facing methods.

Andrus


On Nov 19, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:

> 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
View raw message