>-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Geer [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:57 PM >To: dev >Subject: IDs for Interfaces > >As we move to this interface model one thing we are now missing is a >common >way of handling unique IDs. The JPA models have the EntityID >which uniquely identifies a JPA object but those aren't included in the >interface. That being said, we probably need to put a unique ID in the >interface so that you can identify the objects without having to know what >backend they came from. It doesn't have to map directly to the backend id.
+1 >but needs to be unique. I did notice that a couple of the objects include >get/setId methods which are Longs. We could standardize on that or consider >something like a GUID since they are easy to generate uniquely. I would >also suggest the interfaces should only have getter methods for the ID >since it seems awkward to change somethings unique ID since that could have >massive impacts. This might be something we wait for until the second round >of refactoring but I was thinking about it as I was working. > At the moment, I think we should try to make the least amount of changes. Once we have everything working correctly, I think we should definitely revisit how we handle IDs. >This also leads into a conversation about the interface model as a whole >and will it always be a "deep" model like JPA (where everything is object >relationships and the whole model is loaded all the time) or do we need to >allow for a "shallow" model where some objects contain the IDs of their >relationships and not the objects themselves? Food for thought as we >continue to talk about the modularization topic. In addition to this discussion, I think we should re-evaluate the object model as a whole, much as the pages proposal in the wiki is spearheading. I could definitely see another proposal under Persistence for simplifying the model to whatever degree is possible. With the model no longer directly coupled to the table structure, we have a *bit* more freedom than before. > >Chris
