On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Rahul Thakur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> 2) Criteria vs Named Queries: I am not convinced (yet) that Named > >> queries are the way to go. I did some digging around, they are indeed > >> best practices for JPA but I think the decision merits other > >> consideration(s). I still believe the Criteria Queries will help us > >> define a cleaner Store interface. > >> > > > > > > I'm always in favor of named queries. > > An other point about them that I haven't explain in previous threads (I > > think) is that with named queries, it is possible to modify queries > > externally with xml files so if with a DB we have some performance > issues, > > it will be possible to override queries by a modified JPQL query or a > native > > query. > > > > How do you see the refactored ContinuumStore interface using Named > Queries? I suspect it will be just as verbose again. I don't want to see a new time a big class for the store part. it must be splitted in few domains. All named queries related to Project would be defined in the Project class, all named queries related to ProjectGroup would be defined in the ProjectGroup class... And we can add some more classes for particular results that aren't entities objects (we won't have a lot) With this, all concerns are separated and linked to a specific entity. Easy to code, easy to read, easy to understand. It's my opinion. > > Sorry, still not convinced ;-) I hope you are now ;-) Emmanuel > > > Rahul >
