[Lift] Re: Lift 1.1-M8

2009-12-15 Thread Oleg G.
I'm wondering about scala 2.8 compatibility, is it in or when is it planned? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

[Lift] Re: The quality of the Lift list [was: Don't shoot the non-XML messenger ...]

2009-10-15 Thread Oleg G.
I've been recently really surprised (in positive way) by the Lift community. I also have some experience in maintaining a community and its spirit and i absolutely agree with and support David and his ideas and decisions. Would be really nice to keep the spirit! On Oct 14, 10:49 pm, David Pollak

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-13 Thread Oleg G.
to Naftoli: i added implicits as you said and removed all 'onRegister' stuff, i think its useless.. Here's the result: http://github.com/ojow/Random-code/blob/master/RecordRelatedStuff.scala --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-13 Thread Oleg G.
edit: not all 'onRegister' stuff but most of it, only left two points of extension for intercepting the prototype creation. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-13 Thread Oleg G.
On 13 окт, 10:40, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: I've got a change on review board that will pick up vals and lazy vals that are MappedFields.  Seehttp://reviewboard.liftweb.net/r/40/ However, until certain defects in the Scala compiler

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-12 Thread Oleg G.
stealing your time. On Oct 7, 3:54 am, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Oleg G. ojo...@gmail.com wrote: As i said before i'm not sure that i'm getting the whole picture and maybe my initial question is incorrect in its root. Still: Suppose i

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-12 Thread Oleg G.
Well i don't think its a lot of complexity. Yes its 4 declarations instead of 1 for each field. But 3 of those are generatable by IDE same way as any Java IDE generates setters and getters. All the rest is spring-style instantiations/injections. And usage is even simplier and readable (i mean

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-12 Thread Oleg G.
On 13 окт, 00:08, naf g naftoli...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you have two classes, Model and Record? What are they and why are they interdependent? I thought about Model being a place for metainformation (like database structure, options/properties etc), or maybe it can be described as global

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-12 Thread Oleg G.
Thanks again for your answers, David. I've got your point and it all looks much more clear to me now. On 13 окт, 01:19, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg G. ojo...@gmail.com wrote: Well i don't think its a lot of complexity. You asked

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-12 Thread Oleg G.
After reading Naftoli's post i checked the way inner object laziness is implemented. And it appears to be not thread safe. Following code: class A { val a = 1 } class B { object b extends A } Generates getter for b as follows: public final B$b$ b(); Code: 0: aload_0 1: getfield

[Lift] Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-06 Thread Oleg G.
Sorry if its a stupid question, but why? I like the idea very much and trying to understand all the aspects. Fields declared as 'objects' can't be overridden. Is it intended? If so why? Consider following oversimplified example: trait Field trait Prop1 trait Prop2 trait Prop3 class

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-06 Thread Oleg G.
Thanks for all the answers and especially for David's clarification. It would be really cool to upgrade the 'keeping the meaning with the bytes' thing (http://blog.lostlake.org/index.php?/archives/19-Keeping- the-meaning-with-the-bytes.html) to allow extension/customization. Generally, yes.  I

[Lift] Re: Why fields are declared as 'object' with Mapper/Record?

2009-10-06 Thread Oleg G.
based code if i need to extend/ customize the data structures? On Oct 6, 11:59 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Oleg G. ojo...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for all the answers and especially for David's clarification. It would be really cool