cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Feshbach <djfeshb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Chainable SelectQuery
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:59:52 GMT
One possible reason to avoid "eq" and "ne" is that they are already methods on Scala's AnyRef.
When using Cayenne in Scala, I get errors like this in my IDE:
> org.apache.cayenne.exp.Property[String] and String are unrelated: they will most likely
never compare equal

On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:09 AM, John Huss <johnthuss@gmail.com> wrote:

> I definitely do not want "is", especially since the the negated operation
> has to be consistent - "eq" and "ne" works.
> 
> I like "where".
> 
> I would stick with "select" since we have SQLSelect and ObjectSelect.
> Unless we have good alternatives names for those too.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Cayenne Property class is using 'eq' for the same reason.
>> 
>>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Chainable fest testing assertions use "isEqualTo" to avoid confusion
>>> with "equals"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Michael Gentry <mgentry@masslight.net>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Andrus Adamchik <
>> andrus@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "eq" with "is",
>>>>> 
>>>>> I actually prefer "eq[uals]". Considering all other operations in the
>> Property class, "is" creates a bit of asymmetry IMO.
>>>> 
>>>> The problem with "equals" is it has other connotations in Java,
>>>> otherwise I'd like it just fine.  Of course, you could argue that "is"
>>>> also has other Java connotations (JavaBeans is* method naming
>>>> convention).
>>>> 
>>>> mrg
>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message