Hi, hopefully you guys don't mind helping me out on this one. What I'm
trying to do is create a User object which has additional optional
properties stored as a struct/map. I'm just not sure how to do this
with Transfer. This is what I've come up with so far...
member package definition:
Hi John,
If the key column in the USERPROPERTIES table holds unique values per
User (i.e., a given user would never have more than one record in the
USERPROPERTIES table with the same key), then I'd define the
UserProperty collection as a struct instead of an array, and you could
then use the
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the repy. Using a struct instead of an array definitely makes
sense.
I've been reading my Heads First Design Patterns and they make heavy use of
Java Enums to define the properties. What I want to do is use a
MapFactoryBean to
create my constants as a struct to avoid typos and
Ah, I see. So you'd extend Transfer's generated getUserProperty
method with your own, adding a check to make sure that the argument
passed in matches one of the keys in the map? Neat idea.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, John Whish john.wh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the
Yeah - that's the idea. It seemed like a good one at the time :)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Before posting questions to the group please read:
http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer
You received this message because you
Why not store the user property as a Struct?
Mark
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:50 PM, John Whish john.wh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi, hopefully you guys don't mind helping me out on this one. What I'm
trying to do is create a User object which has additional optional
properties stored as a
Adam,
I can't give you exact dates on this stuff at this time.
I am in the middle of the flex integration (to76), and some code
generation pieces (which it seems I don't have a ticket for, but are
complete anyway).
Mark
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Adam Drew epne...@gmail.com wrote:
