Fedor Karpelevitch wrote:
>
> Sean Legassick wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:23:24AM -0400, Diethelm Guallar, Gonzalo wrote:
> >
> >> Should I change anything in my schema definition? The compilation
> >> error seems pretty definite to me... Perhaps it is a mistake to
> >> have a column named ID? In fact, if I change that column's name
> >> to GONZO, the error goes away. Isn't this an artificial limitation?
> >
> >
> > Yes, which John's patches you can't have a column called 'ID'. Well
> > actually you can if you specify a different javaName...
> >
> > John, you say in the comments that you see getId() being deprecated - is
> > this on the basis that I should be calling getIdAsXXX instead? (know in
> > advance what type I'm looking for back).
>
> I've commented on that already. I think getId/setId is a bad name choice
> for a few reasons:
>
> - ID is a good field name and we now have a lot of name collisions
> - this is not actually an ID this is rather a PK so I would call the
> methods getPrimaryKey/setPrimaryKey instead. The point is that PK may
> consist of several IDs (foreign keys) and name ID would be more than
> confusing here.
>
> fedor.
>
I do not think BaseObject should contain methods
getPrimaryKey/setPrimaryKey. If you really think it is a problem that
getId/setId is being reserved for the object id. I guess I would prefer
a name like getOID/setOID.
John McNally
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
