Yeah, I never use it at all.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
BTW, I'm a little iffy on the static import stuff. It seems less
explicit and somewhat cheating to me, but I'm just tossing the idea
out for feedback.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Michael Gentry <[email protected]
> wrote:
If wanting to keep things shorter, couldn't you do a static import?
I'm a little rusty on the syntax, but wouldn't it be something like:
import static ...query.QueryDirection.*;
Ordering ordering = new Ordering("artistName", ASCENDING);
Hmm, or maybe that only works for static constants and not enums.
I'd
have to test that.
mrg
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Andrus Adamchik
<[email protected]> wrote:
+1
If we can do clean gradual deprecation of the old API. Also I like
us using
ASCENDING instead of ASC, as you proposed, but wonder if we can call
OrderingDirection something shorter, just to keep things tight.
Another candidate for such refactoring is PersistenceState. Maybe
create a
"State" enum or "PersistentState"?
Andrus
On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
Should we add more enums to the code? For example, in
Ordering.java,
there are these constants:
public static final boolean ASC = true;
public static final boolean DESC = false;
However, there is no enum to represent the options. The
constructors look
like:
public Ordering(String sortPathSpec, boolean ascending) ...
There is nothing to encourage/enforce the usage of the constants,
so
you tend to see "true" and "false" being used. Even in our
documentation:
http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/using-orderings.html
query.addOrdering("artistName", true);
Ordering ordering = new Ordering("artistName", true);
To the new (or even experienced) user, seeing "true" there tends to
have no meaning. I (and some of the people I've been showing
Cayenne
to here) would rather see something like:
Ordering ordering = new Ordering("artistName",
OrderingDirection.ASCENDING);
One guy even suggested something like:
Ordering ordering = new AscendingOrdering("artistName");
That is more concise and still explicit, but would obviously
require
even more code changes (probably). Especially when adding the case
insensitive stuff.
Thoughts?
Thanks!
mrg
