Re: Questions to new WonderEntity templates

From: Ramsey Gurley (ramse..eotech.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2010 - 14:51:44 UTC

  • Next message: David Avendasora: "Re: Questions to new WonderEntity templates"

    On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:20 AM, David Avendasora wrote:

    >
    > On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Ramsey Lee Gurley wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:01 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
    >>
    >>> It appears that this change is also breaking existing Wonder
    >>> Frameworks and Apps that have models and generated EOs such as
    >>> ERAttachment and ERModernMoviesDemo:
    >>>
    >>> _ERDatabaseAttachment.java has this:
    >>>
    >>> public static class _ERDatabaseAttachmentClazz extends
    >>> ERAttachment.ERAttachmentClazz {
    >>> /* more clazz methods here */
    >>> }
    >>>
    >>> ERAttachment.java has no ERAttachmentClazz class in it since it is
    >>> an existing class and EOGenerator doesn't touch it.
    >>>
    >>> _ERAttachment.java has this:
    >>>
    >>> public static class _ERAttachmentClazz extends
    >>> ERXGenericRecord.ERXGenericRecordClazz<ERAttachment> {
    >>> /* more clazz methods here */
    >>> }
    >>
    >>
    >> True, since the Entity.java are never regenerated, those would need
    >> to be added manually or the subclasses will be pointing at a non-
    >> existant class for super.
    >>
    >> If that's a huge problem, I can create a patch to pull the clazz
    >> stuff back out. WOL-1125 started as a simple little patch to
    >> change inline strings to static strings, so if this is really
    >> problematic, I'm not insistent that these stay. But if everyone
    >> likes the clazz stuff, I can create a patch to add those too.
    >> Either is fine with me
    >
    > Well, at the very least the rest of Wonder should be made not to
    > break if the base templates change. But besides that, there's lots
    > of people out there that just use the default Wonder templates and
    > this change will break all their frameworks and/or applications. I
    > don't think that is acceptable.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong, I _love_ updates and improvements. We just can't
    > break existing code without a really, really good reason.
    >
    > Dave

    I agree too. To be frank, the clazz stuff sorta slipped in
    accidently. I use these things personally. The first patch I started
    with fresh/existing templates. They were fine. Then I noticed the
    patches (and existing templates) didn't work when generating _entity
    classes in a separate package ( a very helpful feature in its own
    right), so I updated the templates I was using to fix that and
    resubmitted. I sorta realized the goof, because I later noticed my
    ERXLangauges stuff made it in, but that shouldn't cause any problems.
    Only after it was patched in did I realize the clazz stuff was in
    there too.

    That said, the clazz stuff is a pretty nice feature and it cannot be
    included without updating (breaking) existing entity templates. I was
    sorta hoping you guys would just LOVE the idea (^_^) Sadly, since I
    don't hear anyone shouting "Hooray!" I guess that makes it too radical
    of a change to include. I'll create a new set of templates based on
    the original submission that fixes the generated package issue and
    resubmit it asap.

    Sorry I caused so much grief for everyone,

    Ramsey



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jul 02 2010 - 14:52:31 UTC