Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Simplifying Ebean Internals ... by Removing MapBean fuctionality (and DB meta data use)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
rob bygrave  
View profile  
 More options May 3 2009, 5:49 pm
From: rob bygrave <rbygr...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, May 3 2009 5:49 pm
Subject: Simplifying Ebean Internals ... by Removing MapBean fuctionality (and DB meta data use)

http://www.avaje.org/topic-142.html

I have started a forum topic on the subject of Simplifying Ebean Internals by Removing MapBean fuctionality and DB meta data use.


I'm considering an idea to simplify Ebean internals. This would potentially involve removing the MapBean functionality. If you are using the MapBean functionality and don't want it removed can you please let me know - thanks.

In
terms of simplifying Ebean internals... the idea is to re-evaluate the
use of DB meta data. The initial thoughts is that with a couple of
changes ... the need for using the DB meta data is removed (and it
becomes hard to justify keeping it).

The two main things required to do this (at this stage) is

1)
use @NotNull and @Length validation annotations (or
@Column(nullable=false...) annotation). This is generally required by
Ebean to determine the join types (inner/outer). In a sense having
@NotNull etc could be a good/best practice moving forward as it enables
bean validation frameworks etc).

2) use naming convention for
finding the Foreign Key columns (like the JPA spec but
pluggable/configurable)... rather than Ebean finding these via the DB
meta data. Most people are going to have a decent naming convention so
this should not be that bad.

The benefit of this is that the DB
meta data code can all be removed from Ebean (a reasonably complex bit
of work). In the long term keeping everything as simple as possible is
important which is why I'm thinking about this (and leaning towards
doing this).<<

If you any thoughts on this I'd like to hear them... (I'd prefer feedback in the google group rather than the forum).

Thanks, Rob.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.