|
What’s the solution you’re
thinking about? From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wouter Zoons Yeah, I think to have a solution for that
(not committed, I will do that after M3) .. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Brandon Wouter, Actually, I thought about it some more and
I remember why I had the transformEntity methods in the concrete entity by
default. It’s because of the fact you can not detect whether or not
the user has needs his/her own concrete class (unless the entity has
operations). The entity can still have the transformEntity operation
defined in the concrete class even if there are no operations on the entity,
therefore we would need to know that the concrete entity class should no longer
be generated to the target directory but instead be generated to the src/java
directory instead. Currently this is not possible, so therefore the
solution is to have the impl always have the default transformEntity
implementation, so I’ll leave it like that for now. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Brandon Ah yes, good point. I’ll go
ahead and do that before we release tomorrow. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wouter Zoons What I meant was: the default impl now
returns the entity itself (in the DAO impl) .. we could easily move that into
the DaoBase and let the user override if he wants (that way the Impl only
contains code the user actually needs to see) From: Chad Brandon
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What exactly would the default implementation
be? If you’re doing exact copies of the value objects to entities
then yes it would make sense, however I haven’t implemented that option
because usually my value objects aren’t one to one (or isomorphic).
If they were isomorphic, you might as well return the entity most of the time. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wouter Zoons Hi I was wondering why the transformEntity() methods in the
DAOImpl classes are abstract in the DAO base classes .. why don’t they
have the default implementation in the DAO base and isn’t there a comment
or something in the impl. indicating you can override in the DAO impl if
desired ? Unless I am overseeing something here, I think it makes
sense to do so -- Wouter |
