first of all: thank u very much for the fast support where do we put it? as a user of cayenne, i dont really care. as long as it is well documented!
kind regards peter -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 15:42 An: user@cayenne.apache.org Betreff: Re: performing count So where do we put it then? QueryUtils? Andrus On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Michael Gentry wrote: > I don't see a reason to dump it into DataObjectUtils since we don't > have > to. :-) I was thinking about something in CayenneDataObject, but > that > doesn't seem quite right, either for the same reasoning (although > might be > more convenient on users). > > As to not having a fetch method in a query class, I'm fine with > that. I was > asking for opinions, after all. > > Thanks, > > /dev/mrg > > > On 6/4/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Michael Gentry wrote: >> >> > Putting it in DataObjectUtils doesn't seem the right place to me. >> > Using your example: >> > >> > DataObjectUtils.objectForQuery(...) >> > >> > returns a DataObject (which makes sense to me, being packaged in >> > DataObjectUtils). Something that returns an int, which can't >> even be >> > converted into a DataObject, doesn't feel like it should be in >> > DataObjectUtils. >> >> >> I agree that DataObjectUtils becoming a kitchen sink is bad, and >> "DataObjectUtils" name is a bit obsolete anyways, considering that >> "Persistent" is the interface Cayenne stack is dealing with. So >> DataObjectUtils class itself needs some redesign (split QueryUtils >> out of it or something?) >> >> My other point about not adding fetch methods to the query classes is >> still valid though. So we can either push for DataObjectUtils >> redesign now, or use it as a kitchen sink one more time :-) >> >> Andrus >>
