cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: Plans for the future (aka 3.1 roadmap)
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:56:20 GMT
No question, this can be useful. Where this gets in the way is with  
our elusive goal of providing persistence for POJOs without a  
framework-mandated superclass.

The good news is that ClassDescriptor design can accommodate any type  
of objects (as long as you can force it to use ObjectContext  
callbacks). So while it is beneficial to eliminate object structural  
gap between ROP and "normal" Cayenne, it looks like support of  
separate hierarchies of POJOs (preferably without framework  
superclass), and generic objects is in our future (unless we totally  
give up on the POJO idea and keep extending CayenneDataObject  

Now, if we do support both types of objects across the entire stack,  
it will be a user's choice what to inherit from (and as a result  
either use read/writeProperty methods or not).


On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
> 2009/11/19 Andrus Adamchik <>
>> 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.
> For that, I'll disagree. I've used a  
> lot in my
> code for unified processing of DataObjects (non-generic) and prefer  
> those
> method stay in interface (moreover, appear in client-side objects).  
> Vice
> versa, read/writeProperty methods should through ClassDescriptors

View raw message