Well, my thought was to have a checkbox/etc for each attribute/relationship where you could choose if you wanted an Optional returned (defaulting to NOT returning an Optional). I agree that the syntax would be overwhelming for the general case, but was more curious about if it could be useful for a few explicit cases. (Useful enough to warrant the development expense of including the feature.)
How would the extended type work? I assume you are talking attributes-only here? Thanks, mrg On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > I thought of this too. Though I have mixed feelings about using Optional > casually. It is good in processing pipelines. But when used as property > return type in Java Beans to indicate nullable values, it just feels like > syntax for the sake of syntax (I tried a few times, reverted back to normal > properties every time). > > So how about we try it on a small scale? Add an ExtendedType for it in > cayenne-java8, tell the community, and then sit back and wait if anyone > actually wants it :) > > Andrus > > > > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 9:03 PM, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Actually, I suppose this might make sense for attributes, too. Such as a > > User class with a Role attribute that you want to make sure is non-null > and > > you are forced handle the null condition with a default Role if something > > happened to your DB value. > > > > mrg > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I haven't thought through this too much yet, but wanted to get some > >> feedback if possible. > >> > >> Would it make sense to have an option in CM (and supporting > templates/etc) > >> to have Optional as a return type? This would only be meaningful, I > think, > >> on to-one relationships, since to-many will return an empty collection. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> mrg > >> > >> > >
