OK. Let's then just move out to DataObjectUtils (or other helper class) those read/write generic methods
2009/11/19 Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> > 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 >> > > -- Andrey
