Mailing-List: contact user-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:16:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Basic ROP questions
From: Kevin Menard <kmenard@servprise.com>
To: <user@cayenne.apache.org>
Message-ID: <C310645D.C6D2%kmenard@servprise.com>
Thread-Topic: Basic ROP questions
Thread-Index: Acf28hDvT1V9sWLlEdyDrgAbY5TfYwAGhFWK
In-Reply-To: <C31038A1.C692%kmenard@servprise.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Answering my first question . . . That's a definite no.  The parent class
implementations are quite different.  So, I may just have to break down and
create utility classes that accept DOs as arguments.  A bit of pain, but
it'll reduce the code duplication.

-- 
Kevin


On 9/14/07 1:09 PM, "Kevin Menard" <kmenard@servprise.com> wrote:

> I'm just getting started on a ROP project using Cayenne 3.0.  In my server
> classes, I had a large amount of utility methods attached to my DOs.
> Clearly, there's a fair amount of overlap between the server classes and the
> client classes.
> 
> A couple brief questions then follow:
> 
> 1) Will modifying the Velocity template to subclass the servers classes help
> reduce the code duplication?  Will this even work?
> 
> 2) Will packaging either the server or the client classes into distributable
> JARs gain me anything?
> 
> I'll try these out on my own anyway, but before I got too bogged down with
> that, I just wanted to see what's doable and what's not.  I haven't looked
> into the finer details of relationships between the server and client
> classes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 

--