> I'm experimenting with 4.1 and field-based DataObjects. I noticed, using the
> standard 4.1 server superclass template, that the fields that cover
> relationships aren't narrowly typed but are simply specified as Object, which
> is apparently necessary because they may get populated with a ToOneFault or a
> ToManyFault. Is there really no way to get these types more specific?
I guess an alternative way is to create pairs of typed fields ("T related",
"ToOneFault relatedFault"). This will have memory overhead though. IIRC 8 bytes
per object per relationship on a 64-bit architecture, i.e. not that small,
considering how may objects one might keep in memory. So our performance
improvement benchmarks vs 4.0 won't look as impressive :)
> I also noticed that the template specifies the field scope as protected.
> Isn't that unnecessarily broad?
I suspect since getters are doing extra work, it was decided to expose bare
ivars to allow subclasses to manipulate them directly. Having said that,
there's always "readPropertyDirectly(..)" and "writePropertyDirectly(..)" to
access those fields in any special yet-unforeseen cases. So I wouldn't mind if
we make the ivars private in the future releases.
BTW, with your Gson serialization, how do you deal with controlled
serialization of essentially infinite graphs? Do you provide a spec of how deep
to go down the relationships path?
Andrus
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Maik Musall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm experimenting with 4.1 and field-based DataObjects. I noticed, using the
> standard 4.1 server superclass template, that the fields that cover
> relationships aren't narrowly typed but are simply specified as Object, which
> is apparently necessary because they may get populated with a ToOneFault or a
> ToManyFault.
>
> Is there really no way to get these types more specific? One of my
> experimentation goals was to use Gson to serialize DOs from and to JSON, and
> the field-based approach would make that very simple, were it not for the
> relationships.
>
> I also noticed that the template specifies the field scope as protected.
> Isn't that unnecessarily broad? My application works fine with those fields
> being private (which also makes the Gson case easier because I can just tell
> it to cover all private fields, automatically ignoring snapshotVersion,
> objectId, persistentState and other internal fields).
>
> Maik
>
