db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mahler Thomas <thomas.mah...@itellium.com>
Subject RE: PersistentField Problems
Date Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:05:44 GMT
thanks for the code,
I'll have a look at it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McCallister [mailto:mccallister@forthillcompany.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 12:40 AM
> To: OJB Developers List
> Subject: Re: PersistentField Problems
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 01:21 PM, Thomas Mahler wrote:
> 
> > I think making it pluggable at the global level is sufficient. The 
> > scenario you describe is not very common and using a staged 
> > implementation does'nt sound so bad for me.
> 
> I don't know if you want to include this in OJB or not but the 
> necessary class is attached.
> 
> Basically:
> 
> It checks for a field that matches its requirements, then a property, 
> then a DynaProperty (or rather, just checks to see if it is a 
> DynaBean).
> 
> If it matches on one of the above (in the order listed) it will 
> instantiate and wrap the appropriate PersistentFieldImpl [Default | 
> Property | DynaBean]. Once it has identified the correct 
> implementation 
> to use it caches this info so it shouldn't have to go through 
> the (ugly 
> in my opinion) series of switches on exceptions more than once per 
> class/field combo.
> 
> This class allows the mixing of different types on a single 
> class. You 
> can have fields for some properties, and getXXX/setXXX for others (or 
> DynaProperties).
> 
> It's error reporting isn't ideal yet - but I don't think that if this 
> is accepted it should be documented for 1.0 anyway at this 
> late a date.
> 
> -Brian
> 
> 

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