> I swiched to DataMap after I saw no quick access to DataDomain in
> BatchAction class.
It all starts with DataDomainFlushAction, which has a reference to DD,
so there should be a way to inject factory down the tree.
> I assume API changes in public classes of access.jdbc package are
> allowed?
Until we are in Beta, yes.
Andrus
On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
> I swiched to DataMap after I saw no quick access to DataDomain in
> BatchAction class. This needs futher investigation, we need to pass
> domain
> there somehow. I assume API changes in public classes of access.jdbc
> package
> are allowed?
>
> 2009/6/2 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>
>> Excellent. I have one comment (consistent with my position in the
>> previous
>> message). Configuration of the factory below should be attached to
>> the stack
>> objects (e.g. DataDomain), not the mapping objects (DataMap):
>>
>> +
>> + /**
>> + * Sets factory for creating QueryBuilders
>> + */
>> + public void setQueryBuilderFactory(BatchQueryBuilderFactory
>> queryBuilderFactory) {
>> + this.queryBuilderFactory = queryBuilderFactory;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /**
>> + *..eturn factory for creating QueryBuilders. Might be null
>> + */
>> + public BatchQueryBuilderFactory getQueryBuilderFactory() {
>> + return queryBuilderFactory;
>> + }
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrus
>>
>> P.S. Maybe you can separately commit the..eprecated part of the
>> patch ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
>>
>> For not to be unsubstantiated, I uploaded my vision of the feature.
>> Note
>>> that there is no modeler support. It allows to provide custom
>>> factory that
>>> creates builders of INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE queries. 'Soft-delete'
>>> factory
>>> is
>>> included.
>>> I do not say that 'soft delete' checkbox is not needed, but
>>> uploaded code
>>> is
>>> much more generic and allows to plug any behavior (maybe even Ari's
>>> proposed
>>> 'versions'). 'Soft' strategy can be configured with 'deleted'
>>> field name
>>> and
>>> will not fire UPDATE if such field does not exist in DB table.
>>>
>>> Please add your comments!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrey
>>>
>>> 2009/6/2 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But I'm no fan of adding some sort of 'soft' checkbox for
>>>> dbattributes
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I was suggesting marking entity with a "soft delete" checkbox (not
>>>> individual attribute - this would make no sense), and creating a
>>>> criteria
>>>> based on qualifier that references an attribute.
>>>>
>>>> Modeler support will be covered by setting class name of strategy
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I am afraid this approach will be rather arbitrary to the end
>>>> user, so I
>>>> suggest we discuss it some more before putting it in Cayenne.
>>>> Marking an
>>>> entity to use "soft delete" based on some criteria is a clear and
>>>> understandable feature. Setting a "delete strategy" is not, and
>>>> will
>>>> contribute to confusion. This is totally be ok as a backend
>>>> extension
>>>> point,
>>>> but I will hate to see that as a general use feature.
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jun 02 2009 - 10:29:21 EDT