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 13:48:30 GMT
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 <andrus@objectstyle.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


Mime
View raw message