[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TORQUE-343?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15334234#comment-15334234
]
Thomas Vandahl edited comment on TORQUE-343 at 6/16/16 6:16 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I know about the extensibility. The use case I have in mind is the
extension of persistent classes in a library like in Fulcrum Security. You are
supposed to extend e.g. user objects to match your requirements. Right now, we
always need to configure the OM class *and* its Peer class to handle this case.
It would be easier to query the Torque instance for the PeerImpl class for a
given OM class.
Another use case I found are complex queries. I found it very useful to define
separate (non-generated) PeerImpl/RecordMapper classes to handle complex joins
within custom-built objects. In the end I found myself creating those PeerImpl
object instances over and over again because I had no real place to store them.
This is normally not necessary as these objects are thread safe.
If BasePeerImpl were abstract, doSelect(obj), doInsert(obj), doUpdate(obj),
doDelete(obj) and friends could be moved to BasePeerImpl and less code would be
generated. Perhaps we introduce an abstract class derived from BasePeerImpl as
a base class to the generated PeerImpl classes to make use of this fact. Then,
an abstract method buildCriteria() could be placed there.
was (Author: tv):
Yes I know about the extensibility. The use case I have in mind is the
extension of persistent classes in a library like in Fulcrum Security. You are
supposed to extend e.g. user objects to match your requirements. Right now, we
always need to configure the OM class *and* its Peer class to handle this case.
It would be easier to query the Torque instance for the PeerImpl class for a
given OM class.
Another use case I found are complex queries. I found it very useful to define
separate (non-generated) PeerImpl/RecordMapper classes to handle complex joins
within custom-built objects. In the end I found myself up creating those
PeerImpl object instances over and over again because I had no real place to
store them. This is normally not necessary as these objects are thread safe.
to be continued...
> Implement a central registry for peerImpls like the registry for managers
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TORQUE-343
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TORQUE-343
> Project: Torque
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Runtime, Templates
> Affects Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Thomas Vandahl
> Assignee: Thomas Vandahl
> Fix For: 4.1
>
>
> I'd like to suggest a central registry for peerImpl-objects which can be
> queried by the Persistent class it is responsible for. This would allow
> reusing and extending the peer objects dynamically as well as giving them
> some kind of life-cycle.
> The main method would be similar to this:
> {code:java}
> public <T> BasePeerImpl<T> getPeerFor(Class<T> persistentClass)
> {
> return peerRegistry.get(persistentClass);
> }
> {code}
> I would also like to suggest moving the buildCriteria(obj) method to the
> RecordMapper or the TableMap class. This will further reduce the amount of
> code that needs to be generated.
> If the idea is received well, I'll come up with a proposal.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
