Yes, this is a question of classification of "comment" property -
whether we think it is "generic" or not...
I don't have strong feelings either ways. My criteria for a generic
property as "being irrelevant to Cayenne runtime" may not apply to
comments if you use comments in DB schema generation. (BTW, is there a
plan to do that?).
So I am +0 on making comment an ivar. But please (re)open a separate
Jira for that.
Andrus
On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
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
