Mailing-List: contact user-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: AW: performing count
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:45:33 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <49D23F7404DC5B4086D7352312597E0F01115D4A@FNHH-SVMEXDB002.Freenet-AG.de>
Thread-Topic: performing count
Thread-Index: Acend2UZaDJM4EyUSbmspERiZqrUugAACPEA
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peter_Schr=F6der?= <Peter.Schroeder@freenet-ag.de>
To: <user@cayenne.apache.org>

first of all: thank u very much for the fast support

where do we put it? as a user of cayenne, i dont really care. as long as =
it is well documented!

kind regards
peter

-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]=20
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 15:42
An: user@cayenne.apache.org
Betreff: Re: performing count

So where do we put it then? QueryUtils?

Andrus


On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:

> I don't see a reason to dump it into DataObjectUtils since we don't =20
> have
> to.  :-)  I was thinking about something in CayenneDataObject, but =20
> that
> doesn't seem quite right, either for the same reasoning (although =20
> might be
> more convenient on users).
>
> As to not having a fetch method in a query class, I'm fine with =20
> that.  I was
> asking for opinions, after all.
>
> Thanks,
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> On 6/4/07, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>>
>> > Putting it in DataObjectUtils doesn't seem the right place to me.
>> > Using your example:
>> >
>> > DataObjectUtils.objectForQuery(...)
>> >
>> > returns a DataObject (which makes sense to me, being packaged in
>> > DataObjectUtils).  Something that returns an int, which can't =20
>> even be
>> > converted into a DataObject, doesn't feel like it should be in
>> > DataObjectUtils.
>>
>>
>> I agree that DataObjectUtils becoming a kitchen sink is bad, and
>> "DataObjectUtils" name is a bit obsolete anyways, considering that
>> "Persistent" is the interface Cayenne stack is dealing with. So
>> DataObjectUtils class itself needs some redesign (split QueryUtils
>> out of it or something?)
>>
>> My other point about not adding fetch methods to the query classes is
>> still valid though. So we can either push for DataObjectUtils
>> redesign now, or use it as a kitchen sink one more time :-)
>>
>> Andrus
>>