On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/08/12 4:52am, John Huss wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> I am now experimenting with the new class generation too. Since Property >>> is simply a singleton wrapper of a String name, it is pretty lightweight >>> IMO. >>> >>> But now I am wondering whether we still need String constants for >>> property >>> names? My main use of those was always when building qualifiers. Now this >>> will be handled via Properties. Besides you can do MY_PROP.getName(). >>> >>> So do we need this extra redundancy in declarations, making the class >>> less >>> readable? Or should we just keep the Property kind? >>> >>> >> I would vote for deprecating and then removing the string constants. >> > > A change like this would be a good reason to call the next release 4.0. > This would go nicely with creating a completely generified query API. If > so, Properties would live only in the new API and String constants in the > old. So they would exist side-by-side for a while at least. > > Or am I overstating the significance of this change? Probably overstating. > > > > Have you thought about including multiple revisions of the templates to >> allow people to stick with older ones if they want to? Or are they >> responsible for finding the old file in the source and putting in their >> app >> if they don't want to change? >> > > Don't most people copy the templates into their own project anyway? > I always use a custom template, but from my experience with WO, many people just use the built-in one.
