Then what about generic objects?
http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/generic-persistent-class.html
We may end up with 3 types of objects to support instead of 2:
* Real POJO, no framework mandated superlcass
* CDO POJO (for the lack of a better name)
* CDO generic
Andrus
On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
Not exactly. What we need for future use is class "between" PO and
CDO. It
should have DO functionality for easy use, but no values stored in
hashMap.
In my vision, this class will replace CDO. It is not nessesarily
modified PO
class, as I suggested before, but maybe a new class.
2009/11/19 Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]>
On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
1. Moving methods from CDO up to PersistentObject, making
PersistentObject
implement DataObject.
In fact PO was split from CDO in the past to move it the POJO way
(as well
as somewhat coincidentally - the ROP way). I don't want to lose
that work.
So I'd say we simply start supporting CDO in ROP and PO on the
server, and
let the users decide on their preferred inheritance.
Andrus
--
Andrey
