Hi, Some code using a couple of Entities as examples would be nice :-)
I still think the API would be verbose. Thanks, Rahul On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > >
