[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1752?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13580166#comment-13580166
]
Ilya Drabenia edited comment on CAY-1752 at 2/17/13 11:12 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrus, do we need java type combo box at ObjAttribute inspector? What do you
think? Now we do not may change objattribute type, and do not has sence to
change embedded attribute at this dialog.
was (Author: idrabenia):
Andrus, do we need java type combo box at ObjAttribute inspector? Now we do
not may change objattribute type, and do not has sence to change embedded
attribute at this dialog.
> Java type should be a property of DbAttribute, not ObjAttribute
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CAY-1752
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1752
> Project: Cayenne
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core Library
> Reporter: Andrus Adamchik
> Assignee: Andrus Adamchik
> Fix For: 3.2M1
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0002-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0003-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0004-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0005-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0006-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0007-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0008-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0009-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0010-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 0011-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 1-0001-0012-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch,
> 1-0013-CAY-1752-Java-type-should-be-a-property-of-DbAttribu.patch
>
>
> from here: http://markmail.org/message/icr7seqazgsdtewc
> I am thinking of redefining one of the mapping assumptions that was in Cayenne
> since day one. In 3.2 I want to move attribute java type from ObjAttribute to
> DbAttribute. The goal of this change is to improve consistency of the runtime
> model. Current separation of Java and DB attribute types causes a whole class
> of
> bugs and a whole class of hacks in the framework.
> E.g.:
> 1. Unrecognized non-standard type mapping. This one is discussed at the moment
> on the user list [1]. I suspect it has nothing to do with "custom" types, but
> rather with non-JDBC default mapping of DB data to Java, regardless of the
> Java
> type.
> 2. Hacks to recognize non-standard type mapping. When creating a DataRow,
> Cayenne would try to guess which ObjEntities might use this DataRow, and
> populate DataRows with values corresponding to the ObjAttribute type
> definitions. This clearly breaks layer separation - lower layers have to know
> too much about the higher layers of the stack. Besides it doesn't always work
> anyways - see #3.
> 3. Extra mapping "flexibility" that doesn't really work. We had past Jiras
> when
> the same column is mapped to different Java types in 2 different subclasses,
> creating a mess in subclass-agnostic DataRows.
> This is not a full list of problems, but gives you some idea. I am hoping the
> suggested change would tie things up and leave no space for ambiguities.
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/6bs2suislyfp3apk
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
