db-torque-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Fischer <fisc...@seitenbau.net>
Subject Re: 3.2-RC2 not being the final release candidate ?
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:31:00 GMT

Thomas Vandahl <thomas.vandahl@tewisoft.de> schrieb am 05.10.2005 09:09:23:

> Thomas Fischer wrote:
> > After the discussion in TRQS322, it seems to me that Torque 3.2-RC2 is
> > suitable as the final release, so I will start development towards
> > If anyone wants a formal vote about it, please shout now.
> If that is the case, I would like to add some more "cleanup" patches to
> the templates.

Please do :-)

> I removed some obsolete imports and removed the unused
> tmpKey variable. There is still some inconsistency in the hierarchy of
> the generated objects, but I need some hint to get this solved:
> - According to ExtensionObject.vm, the extended object implements
> Persistent, which is normally not necessary, because BaseObject already
> implements Persistent.
> - According to the generator schema documentation, the base object for
> the generated classes can be overridden, so that one might not implement
> Persistent.
> - However, the BaseXXX classes require most of the Persistent methods
> If I removed that "implements Persistent" line from ExtensionObject.vm,
> would that break some scenario I didn't think of?

As you wrote, in some exotic cases, it might be possible that the
"implements persistent" is needed; not from a compiler point of view, but
to remember the user which methods must be implemented if he does not
inherit from BaseObject. I do not see much harm in implementing an
interface twice in the hierarchy, so personally I would not lay much
emphasis on removing it.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message