I agree. EntityState doesn't have to know about the type as it ist just a dumb
state holder.
State gets relevant when used at the client.
The version of then entity is included in the state. Why not also the
schemaVersion of the type at the time of storage?
So our QI ist just the UID without the type (as it is now?).
Then the UID really must be unique over all entities, right?
Seems a nice challenge for mapping stores :)
Michael
Am 25.03.2009 5:27 Uhr, schrieb Rickard Öberg:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
The ID passed at that level is an opaque String? Would that create
problem for 'mapping'-like stores?
It would. But if we split the responsibilities of storing and managing
type this could maybe be fixed. If EntityState did not include
EntityType, but it *is* provided EntityType on prepare(), then it could
work I think. Maybe. Not sure at all...
Yes, I think that would make sense. In fact, UoW is fairly overloaded
and perhaps there are other things it does that perhaps should be
broken out as well.
Most likely!
/Rickard
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
