I'm afraid I don't actually catch the point. This sounds like two separate tasks. Comments that are (re) engineered to SQL comments cannot be generic, because as far as I know, SQL specifies only one string per column, table etc. Generic properties are more flexible, but they cannot be saved in DB. And I don't like the idea of having generic property map this one "specific" comment key, because it makes the design blurry. So possibly we could open both tasks (?)
Andrey 2009/4/14 Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected]> > > On 14/04/2009, at 6:13 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > > I have no problem with the reduced scope. But can we still make it a >> generic property map initialized lazily and attached to DbAtrtribute or >> DbEntity, with comments being just one of the possible fields in it? I.e. >> the idea to group any properties not relevant to Cayenne runtime functioning >> in an untyped Map<String, Object>, instead of declaring them as ivars >> > > Map<String, String> might be easier unless we want to go to the trouble of > typing these objects in both Cayenne modeler with another popup option and > also in the XML. Mostly the user can cast them into some other data type if > needed. > > Ari > > > > --------------------------> > ish > http://www.ish.com.au > Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia > phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001 > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A > > >
