Hi Andriy,
On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 11:36 Europe/Rome, Andriy Shapochka wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Giulio Cesare Solaroli" <slrgcs..bn-italy.com>
> To: <cayenne-deve..bjectstyle.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:28 AM
> Subject: RFC: semantic of expressions
>
>> Any suggestion on this idea to restructure the expressions based on
>> their semantic, instead on their attribute (as they are now)?
>> Do you like the way the code looks like?
>>
>> Thanks for the attention.
>>
>> Giulio Cesare Solaroli
>>
>
> My opinion always was the main purpose of the Query/Expression part of
> the
> framework is not to hide the actual SQL query logic from a developer
> but
> help quickly build the types of queries often used in practice, and at
> that
> the semantics should be easily understood from the corresponding Java
> code.
I agree that the semantic should be transparent, but the SQL should be
opaque.
Visible on occurrence, but mainly opaque, in order to allow developers
to focus on application logic instead of SQL coding.
> Thus I believe the exercise of the two different approaches in your
> example
> is appropriate. Maybe, the naming conventions could point to the
> difference
> in the semantics and the underlying SQL logic even sharper? What would
> you
> say?
I have been using the second approach for the last four years (as an
home made extensions to the EOF framework), and I am quite comfortable
with it. But my previous solution was driven by the requirement of
writing something different (the AndQualifier was already taken) in a
framework with its own logic I could not subvert.
With Cayenne there is the option to build something new, so I would
like to get someone else opinion, in order to reduce the bias due to my
previous experience.
Thanks.
Giulio Cesare Solaroli
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Oct 21 2003 - 05:52:19 EDT