No problem. Kevin via mobile.
On Sun, December 4, 2011 22:53, Dan Haywood wrote: > Hi Kevin, > Thx for checking on this before committing... and yes, I'm not that keen > on > this change. > I'll try to respond more fully tomorrow, but if you can hold off for now, > I'd appreciate it. > Cheers > Dan > > Sorry to be brief, sent from my phone > On Dec 4, 2011 8:02 PM, "Kevin Meyer - KMZ" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Guys, >> >> In order to provide support for object / entity level support of >> hidden() >> and disabled(), I have had to make changes to the metamodel and >> related. >> >> Specifically, adding: >> Consent isVisible(AuthenticationSession session); >> and >> Consent isUsable(AuthenticationSession session); >> to >> oai.core.metamodel.adapter.ObjectAdapter. >> >> Of course, this had some knock-on effects on derived classes (most >> specifically, PojoAdapter and the metamodel wrapper. >> The metamodel wrapper also had to be modified to actually check for >> the new behaviour. >> >> Anyway - looking at how the HTML Viewer *still* needs to be changed >> (the whole concept of making an entire entity read-only is new), I'm >> left >> wondering if Dan's suggested kludge might be the better approach! >> >> The details: >> I have provided support for checking if an object is read-only/visible. >> Dan's suggestion was to implement this by manually forcing each >> field/action to be read-only/visible. >> >> >> >> >> My changes: >> An object can specify if it is hidden or read-only with a single pair of >> methods. >> >> Advantage: >> Using my additions, viewers can check an object first, before checking >> individual fields/properties. >> >> Disadvantage: >> Viewers have to be modified(?). >> >> >> >> >> Using Dan's suggestion (of forcing the behaviour onto each field): >> Make each field/property check to the see if owning entity is read- >> only/visible. >> >> Advantage: >> Should work with existing viewers out of the box. >> >> Disadvantage: >> Kludge. Seemed inefficient to me. The same "validate" method will be >> called multiple times - 1 for each method/property in the entity. >> >> >> >> Opinions, please? >> >> >> >> >> >
