gilles dodinet wrote:
> ok... i take note ;p but is it foolish to think about a pool of oid??
> is there a contradiction with the castor model?
> i think it will avoid the use of an id field in the business object (id
> field have often no business meaning)
> what do u think about it?
looks like it's possible, but requires much work.
also it requires to always use keygenerator or to call db.create with
additional parameter "identity".
for me having in a business object meaningless fields like identity
and timestamp is okay. i suppose that "business object" is in the
first place "object", so it should contain all relevant data.
and imho "oid" is a valid notion for oo programming.
oleg
>>From: Oleg Nitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>hi gilles,
>>
>>yes, objects _require_ to have an identity field.
>>
>>oleg
>>
>>gilles dodinet wrote:
>>
>> > hi oleg..
>>
>> > about identity... i wonder if objects _require_ to have a field (say)
>> > 'identity' that map to the primary key. it seem that they do.
>> > if not, ive passed through, so how can i achieve that.
>> > if yes, what about a pool of oid? (some kind of OIDManager and Hashtable
>> > perhaps?)
>>
>> > --
>> > gilles
> _________________________________________________________________
> T�l�chargez MSN Explorer gratuitement � l'adresse
> http://explorer.msn.fr/intl.asp
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
> unsubscribe castor-dev
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
