+1 for making the changes and I'm happy to help with the mundane stuff. Regards Scott
2008/10/22 David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I added some stuff to make the warnings from entity field type checks a bit > more prominent, and include a stack trace to make them easier to track down. > I tried throwing exceptions instead of the warning log messages but that > pretty much breaks everything, especially because we have lots of > BigDecimal/Double problems... > > On the BigDecimal versus Double stuff, one of the main type change problems > comes from this old issue. To help resolve this I'd like to change the > java-type of currency-amount and currency-precise to BigDecimal instead of > Double. > > It doesn't make sense to change the "floating-point" type's java-type to > BigDecimal, because it really is a floating point like a Double. However, we > also have many fields that need decimal precision but really should be fixed > point and not floating point... but they really aren't "currency". For these > I propose to add a "fixed-point" field type. This would have a BigDecimal > java-type and in the database should have a type that is also fixed point > (ie not DOUBLE or FLOAT), unless the database has no fixed point types > (which is a big minus for those databases). Also, the floating-point type > should have a Double java-type and a floating point SQL type. > > One side effect to changing the java-type on these field types is that it > changes services definitions that are based on entity definitions, which > causes the service engine to throw exceptions for type checks... and it does > throw exceptions instead of just printing warning messages, so it does break > stuff when doing that. > > This is a change that we can't switch back and forth on. Either all of these > services take a Double typed parameters, or BigDecimal typed ones... and > never some of each. > > Because of this I'm actually tempted to do a branch and get the changes > going. I'm paying with a few common processes with this in place right now. > > Any thoughts related to this would be appreciated. > > Checking types... what a can of worms! > > -David > > >
