I'm afraid I don't actually catch the point. This sounds like two separate
tasks.
Comments that are (re) engineered to SQL comments cannot be generic, because
as far as I know, SQL specifies only one string per column, table etc.
Generic properties are more flexible, but they cannot be saved in DB. And I
don't like the idea of having generic property map this one "specific"
comment key, because it makes the design blurry. So possibly we could open
both tasks (?)
Andrey
2009/4/14 Aristedes Maniatis <ar..sh.com.au>
>
> On 14/04/2009, at 6:13 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> I have no problem with the reduced scope. But can we still make it a
>> generic property map initialized lazily and attached to DbAtrtribute or
>> DbEntity, with comments being just one of the possible fields in it? I.e.
>> the idea to group any properties not relevant to Cayenne runtime functioning
>> in an untyped Map<String, Object>, instead of declaring them as ivars
>>
>
> Map<String, String> might be easier unless we want to go to the trouble of
> typing these objects in both Cayenne modeler with another popup option and
> also in the XML. Mostly the user can cast them into some other data type if
> needed.
>
> Ari
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Apr 14 2009 - 04:30:49 EDT