<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Steve,<br>
<br>
Any additional input before I upload a new patch?<br>
<br>
-Rob<br>
<br>
</font></font><br>
On 09/03/2009 10:28 PM, Rob Hasselbaum wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4AA07B6A.9060608@hasselbaum.net" type="cite">Hi
Steve,
<br>
<br>
Thanks for the feedback. I am working on moving the patch to trunk as
you requested. I'll update the bug when that's done. My comments on the
rest of your feedback are inline below.
<br>
<br>
On 09/03/2009 04:39 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">1) Personally, I don't like the attribute
names sql-get and sql-set.
<br>
When I think through trying to describe and explain this feature to
<br>
people, the terms "wrap" and "unwrap" keep coming to my head as being
<br>
descriptive, relevant and natural. It was really the "naturalness"
<br>
aspect that got me with sql-get and sql-set. Other terms I could think
<br>
of included encode/decodeAny other suggestions? </blockquote>
<br>
I went with "sql-set" and "sql-get" because they are consistent with
the existing "sql-type" attribute and make sense to me, but I'm not
married to the terms. Wrap and unwrap sound good, too. Bear in mind
that the expressions need not be function calls, which wrap and unwrap
might suggest. The functional tests do math, for instance.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">2) Can anyone foresee a valid use-case for
allowing one of these to be
<br>
defined w/o the other? The only thing I came up with was for immutable
<br>
properties. So something like <column name="xyz"
unwrap="decode(xyz)"
<br>
insert="false" update="false"/>, which can also be defined using a
<br>
formula like <formula>decode(xyz)</formula>. The reason I
ask is that
<br>
if they should always be used together then maybe it is better to
<br>
enforce that in the DTD and/or binder
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I couldn't think of a use case for a one-way conversion either. In
fact, you could end up reading out a different value than the one you
put in if you're not careful. But I'd regret adding an artificial
restriction if someone came up with a legitimate use case next year.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">3) You renamed the getTemplate method on
Selectable to
<br>
getGetterTemplate. Everything in the o.h.mapping package is an SPI
that
<br>
is used by many other libraries. We need to be very careful about
<br>
changing stuff in here. I am not sure if folks bind to this particular
<br>
method. But since this is just a cosmetic change, I think it should be
<br>
reverted.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry, this was an oversight. At first, I thought I was going to need
to store a setter template in addition to a getter template in the
Column class, It turned out that I didn't need it, but I forgot to
revert the name of the getter template. I'll fix that.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Still not done looking through the whole
patch. Will try to finish up
<br>
tomorrow.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
-Rob
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>