continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Venisse" <emmanuel.veni...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ContinuumStore refactoring
Date Thu, 01 May 2008 15:28:54 GMT
ok, the base is done. You can look at it.

Team, can you look at my JPA branch and at the Rahul's one too and let us
know what you think about them and which method you'd want to use in
Continuum.

Thanks
Emmanuel

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Emmanuel Venisse <
emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com> wrote:

> The sample is ready, I'll try to clean the code in the train and commit it
> tonight.
> I wanted to use Spring annotations for auto-configuration instead of the
> sping conf file, but it isn't important and out of topic for the sample.
>
> Emmanuel
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Rahul Thakur <rahul.thakur.xdev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Emmanuel,
> >
> > Just wondering if you hacked some samples? :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rahul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
> >
> > > I'll create some examples asap.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Rahul Thakur<
> > > rahul.thakur.xdev@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >  Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Some code using a couple of Entities as examples would be nice :-)
> > > >
> > > > I still think the API would be verbose.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rahul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Emmanuel Venisse
> > > > <emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Rahul Thakur<
> > > > >
> > > > rahul.thakur.xdev@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  2)   Criteria vs Named Queries: I am not convinced (yet) that
> > > > > > > > Named
> > > > > > > > queries are the way to go. I did some digging around,
they
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > indeed
> > > >
> > > > >  best practices for JPA but I think the decision merits other
> > > > > > > > consideration(s). I still believe the Criteria Queries
will
> > > > > > > > help us
> > > > > > > > define a cleaner Store interface.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm always in favor of named queries.
> > > > > > > An other point about them that I haven't explain in previous
> > > > > > > threads
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > (I
> > > >
> > > > > think) is that with named queries, it is possible to modify
> > > > > > > queries
> > > > > > > externally with xml files so if with a DB we have some
> > > > > > > performance
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > issues,
> > > > >
> > > > > > it will be possible to override queries by a modified JPQL query
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > a
> > > >
> > > > > native
> > > > >
> > > > > > query.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  How do you see the refactored ContinuumStore interface
using
> > > > > > Named
> > > > > > Queries? I suspect it will be just as verbose again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I don't want to see a new time a big class for the store part. it
> > > > > must
> > > > >
> > > > be
> > > >
> > > > > splitted in few domains.
> > > > > All named queries related to Project would be defined in the
> > > > > Project
> > > > >
> > > > class,
> > > >
> > > > > all named queries related to ProjectGroup would be defined in the
> > > > > ProjectGroup class...
> > > > >
> > > > > And we can add some more classes for particular results that
> > > > > aren't
> > > > >
> > > > entities
> > > >
> > > > > objects (we won't have a lot)
> > > > >
> > > > > With this, all concerns are separated and linked to a specific
> > > > > entity.
> > > > >
> > > > Easy
> > > >
> > > > > to code, easy to read, easy to understand. It's my opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Sorry, still not convinced ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > I hope you are now ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Emmanuel
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rahul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message