Hi Andrus, did you have a chance to look at this yet? The reason I ask is that our application hit the memory limit this week again (-Xmx at 96 GB), and according to some profiling, almost half of that is used up by HashMap nodes. So we're really eager to upgrade to Cayenne 4.1 to be able to use field-based DataObjects, but this is preventing us from going ahead.
Thanks Maik > Am 25.09.2018 um 16:23 schrieb Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org>: > >> "Should Cayenne by default work without prefixed accessors". > > My answer to this : "By default, no. As a fallback or a custom strategy, > possibly." > > I actually agree about Java beans. They are almost irrelevant now. And I wish > Java gets "data classes" and some transparent form of "properties". > > As things stand now though, there's no common established alternative based > on a naming convention that we can safely hardcode without causing grief for > someone because they didn't expect that their method would be called when > evaluating expressions. Hence my preference for a DI fix. > > So how about this... Unless someone else steps in by then, let me brainstorm > it with Nikita a couple of weeks from now and see if we can do a DI solution. > It is not nearly as involved as it appears. > > Andrus > > >> On Sep 25, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: >> >> Hi Andrus and thanks for the reply, >> >> allowing replacement of the entire reflection strategy is certainly nice and >> would allow me to make the customizations I need. >> >> However, if it's OK with you, rather than discuss implementation details, >> I'd like to take two steps back and revert to the more philosophical design >> question of: >> >> "Should Cayenne by default work without prefixed accessors". >> >> What is there to be lost or gained from keeping or abandoning the >> prefix-requirement? >> >> I believe I can safely assert that Cayenne works fine without accessor >> prefixes, since I've used it that way on dozens of projects, so it looks >> like a somewhat arbitrary limitation. It's only with the introduction of >> field based DOs that we get a problem in a very isolated part of the >> framework. >> >> It seems to me that the java ecosystem is moving towards more modern API >> design—we've even got the architect of the Java language calling the >> bean-style "at best a questionable -- and certainly overused -- API naming >> convention" [http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/amber/datum.html >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/amber/datum.html>] (pardon the >> appeal to authority, but considering where it comes from, it's probably a >> good barometer for where java language and API design is headed). >> >> I'd say that the framework would be well served and future-proofed by >> dropping the requirement for hard-coded accessor prefixes as a baked in >> requirement. >> >> Cheers, >> - hugi >> >> >> >>> On 25 Sep 2018, at 11:15, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Hugi, >>> >>> My vote would be to do it right. There is a positive side effect that the >>> entire reflection strategy suddenly becomes customizable. >>> >>> Andrus >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 25, 2018, at 7:11 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Andrus, and y'all. >>>> >>>> I've been looking into this and it seems like a rather large change to >>>> allow something relatively simple (allowing DataObjects to have accessor >>>> methods that don't start with a "get"-prefix). >>>> >>>> Would people be diametrically opposed to just changing BeanAccessor so >>>> that it seeks for a non-prefixed method if a prefixed one isn't found? >>>> That modification is minimal and shouldn't affect any current users, so I >>>> can think of. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> - hugi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 20 Sep 2018, at 16:08, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Maik, >>>>> >>>>> In Cayenne a canonical way to override services is via DI. A PR that >>>>> follows that approach has a good chance of acceptance. >>>>> >>>>> From a quick glance, I wonder if this new DI endpoint should be a factory >>>>> of ClassDescriptorMap (which is currently lazily created inside >>>>> EntityResolver). We can't make ClassDescriptorMap itself DI-managed as it >>>>> depends on the mapping state, but a factory for it can be a DI singleton. >>>>> Inside your custom factory (a few levels down actually) you can provide a >>>>> subclass of BeanAccessor (maybe also via its own DI factory?). >>>>> >>>>> Andrus >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 19, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Maik Musall <m...@selbstdenker.ag> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to pull up this discussion from one year ago again. I'm >>>>>> currently running 4.0 and testing upgrading to 4.1 using field-based >>>>>> DataObjects, and I'm hitting the hard-coded prefixes in BeanAccessor >>>>>> that prevent me from proceeding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, in theory I could sigh, yield, and use "get" prefixes, but not only >>>>>> do I dislike introducing the "get" boilerplate everywhere. I am also >>>>>> somewhat reluctant to make a refactoring touching some 800+ files in my >>>>>> project. To be honest, I'd rather patch BeanAccessor to personal taste >>>>>> and deal with the consequences. >>>>>> >>>>>> BeanAccessor is currently always called by it's constructor. In addition >>>>>> to the options Hugi described in his original mail in this thread, I >>>>>> could also imagine a way to modify this to be able to inject a custom >>>>>> Accessor implementation as an alternative. What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> And… what would happen if someone would submit a pull request actually >>>>>> implementing one of these options? :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Maik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 26.09.2017 um 15:32 schrieb Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for an honest attempt to convince me. Hard sell, though. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I use a lot of 3rd party libraries and I've only hit one time where >>>>>>> using the bean spec was necessary — JasperReports. That was easily >>>>>>> fixed by providing *BeanInfo classes, in accordance with the Bean spec. >>>>>>> But Cayenne doesn't really follow the Java Bean Spec, it just hardcodes >>>>>>> "is", "get" and "set". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for the Eclipse thing… Well. A standard DataObject already has five >>>>>>> methods prefixed with "get" so that list is questionable. And I don't >>>>>>> miss this functionality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's important to note that the change I'm proposing would not >>>>>>> affect those who choose to add the prefix. It just accommodates those >>>>>>> of us who choose not to, thus expanding the audience of the framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> - hugi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 26 Sep 2017, at 12:01, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Hugi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me try to sell you on the "get" prefix. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (I did a lot of WebObjects/EOF in the past, in Objective-C and Java, >>>>>>>> so I >>>>>>>> understand the reluctance.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * The "get" prefix is part of the JavaBeans standard/contract. With >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> exception of "is" for booleans (with a little "b"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * There are tons of Java frameworks out there that expect and utilize >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> JavaBeans contract, so it is great for folding external frameworks into >>>>>>>> your code. Or folding Cayenne into other frameworks, such as >>>>>>>> Tapestry. I >>>>>>>> can specify Cayenne object/relationship paths in Tapestry (and other >>>>>>>> frameworks) such as >>>>>>>> t:value="currentItem.resourceSummary.grossCost.costs.continuingFootnote" >>>>>>>> (real example). Since Tapestry expects the JavaBeans contract and >>>>>>>> Cayenne >>>>>>>> provides it, this works flawlessly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * In Eclipse (and others, I'm sure) I can do anObject.get[pause or >>>>>>>> control-space] and see all the getters associated with that object. >>>>>>>> Without the get prefix, they are spread out a-z and therefore you >>>>>>>> can't get >>>>>>>> as concise a list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mrg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Touching on an old subject that has now become more important with >>>>>>>>> field-based Data Objects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All of my DataObjects use accessor methods without the "get"-prefix. >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> was fine with Map Based data objects (where a MapAccessor would get >>>>>>>>> property values by name), but now that my objects are field based, >>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>> comes BeanAccessor which is hardcoded to have every getter prefixed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I propose that BeanAccessor be modified to allow accessor methods >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> the "get"-prefix. Methods with "get" would get precedence, but if no >>>>>>>>> method >>>>>>>>> with a "get"-prefix exists, check for the existence of a method with >>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>> the property name. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although it's a minimal change in code, I realise it comes with a bit >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> potential baggage WRT testing. But this is not just to scratch a >>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>> itch; once Cayenne 4.0 is out I want to start a large scale >>>>>>>>> introduction of >>>>>>>>> Cayenne to the EOF world where the get prefix is generally not liked >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> this change would have a big appeal. Besides, I'm not a big fan of the >>>>>>>>> get-prefix myself, I find it a bit redundant :). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An alternative would be to adhere to the Bean standard, and make >>>>>>>>> BeanAccessor read bean meta information (usually specified in >>>>>>>>> *BeanInfo >>>>>>>>> classes) and get names of getter/setter methods from there. But that >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> be a much larger change than just checking for a method with >>>>>>>>> propertyName >>>>>>>>> if the getPropertyName method doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> - hugi >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
