I am generally impressed with Google tools, but I am also in the
privacy freak camp. Still I know that the battle for online (or real
world) privacy is lost and this or that small concession is benign by
itself and doesn't change much in the big picture. So my vote is +0,
meaning I won't ac
On May 30, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
There are many good weblog analyzers that don't require to "give
away your data", so I don't get why are you so keen on selling
yourself to Google.
I know of webalizer (and I used it on ObjectStyle). Anything else
worth checking?
Andrus
There are many good weblog analyzers that don't require to "give away
your data", so I don't get why are you so keen on selling yourself to
Google.
I know of webalizer (and I used it on ObjectStyle).
Webalizer is pretty primitive and "old style". AWStats falls in the same
category
but it's m
On 30/05/2007, at 5:13 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
I know of webalizer (and I used it on ObjectStyle). Anything else
worth checking?
Providing web hosting to a range of customers now for the last 10
years, I've tried most everything. Nothing comes even close to the
Google tool.
I too am
I know of webalizer (and I used it on ObjectStyle). Anything else
worth checking?
Providing web hosting to a range of customers now for the last 10 years,
I've tried most everything. Nothing comes even close to the Google tool.
That's simply not true :). Depending on what you want to achieve (
On 29/05/2007, at 8:01 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Trying to decompose it further (so that we could Jira individual
chunks easily :-))... +1 for the abstract entities support, but
they can also be implemented as a separate feature independent from
inheritance per se.
needs the following
On May 30, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
* Changes to the validation rules to allow ObjEntity with no db
entity for abstract entities
The question of 'isAbstract' is merely a question of 'can instances
of this entity be instantiated'?
Certainly changes to validation rules are n
On May 30, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
I'm not familiar with the embeddable discussion but this is the
idea of DbEntity interfaces:
a) you have a series of DbEntities that are not inherited in any
way but for which you want them to conform to an interface 'A'.
They are explicitly
On May 30, 2007, at 12:16 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
The only use I can see for it is a *coincidental* match between
groups of attributes in multiple tables. So is it worth
complicating the mapping by introducing a concept with no analog in
the DB world? My suspicion is that it will be ver
On 30/05/2007, at 7:16 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
What I am concerned about with DbEntity interfaces is that
DbEntities model database tables and there is no interface concept
in DB world. So I still don't understand why we need DbEntity
inheritance? Could you please elaborate or give some
Yes, "prototype" is a much better word, and such change in
terminology is very important for this discussion to go forward, as
"interface" has a very specific meaning in OO development. Let's
definitely discuss it separately from the inheritance.
Andrus
On May 30, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Arist
Abstract objEntities
Key: CAY-794
URL: https://issues.apache.org/cayenne/browse/CAY-794
Project: Cayenne
Issue Type: New Feature
Affects Versions: 3.0
Reporter: Ari Maniatis
Assignee: Ari Mani
Horizontal inheritance
--
Key: CAY-795
URL: https://issues.apache.org/cayenne/browse/CAY-795
Project: Cayenne
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: Cayenne Core Library
Affects Versions: 3.0
Report
Note that we already have open JIRA issues on creating prototypes.
It's just that no one's gotten around to implementing it yet. For
example,
https://issues.apache.org/cayenne/browse/CAY-225
On 5/30/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, "prototype" is a much better word, and suc
I don't understand your question.
Let me explain what I do -- maybe it will clear things up.
Instead of the typical _generated-entity.java and entity.java classes, I create
_generated-entity.java -- class
entity.java -- class
_generated-entity-interface.java -- interface
entity-interface.java
> -Original Message-
> From: Aristedes Maniatis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:32 AM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Abstract Entities [Was: Modelling improvements:
> inheritance + interfacing (Draft)]
>
> > * Changes to the code generation tem
Hi Kevin,
Let me guess the answer to this one.
First we're talking about an ObjEntity, not a DataObject. So you'd
never subclass it.
As an example, one of my projects has WORK_ORDER, DISCONNECT_ORDER,
CONNECT_ORDER (and so on) tables. WORK_ORDER is the common shared
info by any kind of task.
On 5/30/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
info by any kind of task. But you'd never have a WORK_ORDER entry
without a subclass table. Thus, the template generator should never
create WorkOrder as an abstract class.
Ugh. This should have been "would always create WorkOrder as
Gotcha. That makes a lot more sense now.
Thanks,
Kevin
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Abstract Entities [Was: Modelling improvements:
> inheritance + interfaci
> Do you have a few minutes to help turning this commit into patches
> against 1.1 and 1.2:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=541595
Hmm, I will have to check out the old code then. I am only having version
3 configured for compilation. I plan to look into this on this friday.
On 30/05/2007, at 7:32 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 30/05/2007, at 7:16 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
What I am concerned about with DbEntity interfaces is that
DbEntities model database tables and there is no interface concept
in DB world. So I still don't understand why we need DbEntity
On 30/05/2007, at 3:04 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 29/05/2007, at 11:02 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Ok, I overlooked the issue of DB mapping of abstract entities that
do not have a DbEntity. IIRC this issue was raised when we
discussed embeddables. Not sure we came to any conclusion back
th
On 30/05/2007, at 7:32 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
3. vertical inheritance (where a special ObjRelationship is created
to specify the superclass. There may also need to be a qualifier
like with single table - Lachlan thinks yes, I'm dubious.)
The qualifier is required for vertical inherit
On 30/05/2007, at 7:16 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
I'm not familiar with the embeddable discussion but this is the
idea of DbEntity interfaces:
a) you have a series of DbEntities that are not inherited in any
way but for which you want them to
On 31/05/2007, at 2:40 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
I'm clearly showing my ignorance on the matter here, but what does it
mean for an object to know that it's abstract? Isn't that a
property of
the class? What happens when you subclass the ObjEntity?
Cayenne will need to know this information
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one other
property added to the ObjEntity: the name of the relationship used to
find the superclass.
When we get to inheritance, we'd be wise to follow the JPA methodology
for sp
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one other
property added to the ObjEntity: the name of the relationship used to
find the superclass.
When we get to inherit
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one other
property added to the ObjEntity: the name of the relationship
u
On May 30, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one
other
property add
Hi there,
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertic
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
While it might be possible theoretically to define a different
column in the database to be used as the association column to join
rows of a subclass and a superclass table, by far the most common
and most understandable way to map inherita
I have tried to unsubscribe from this list by sending
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , but to no
avail can anybody suggest how else I could try ?
Be
a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from s
On 31/05/2007, at 3:44 PM, srinivas sagar wrote:
I have tried to unsubscribe from this list by sending
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , but to no
avail can anybody suggest how else I could try ?
How about reading here:
http://cayenne.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
with regards,
--
Lachlan Deck
On 31/05/2007, at 3:44 PM, srinivas sagar wrote:
I have tried to unsubscribe from this list by sending
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , but to no
avail can anybody suggest how else I could try ?
http://cayenne.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
-->
Aristedes Maniatis
phon
Hi Lachlan,
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
Hi there,
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Ari
Hi Craig,
On 31/05/2007, at 4:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
However, my question remains this: if not defined in a
relationship where does the developer define the delete rules etc?
Or are you suggesting they don't get an option?
In an inh
Hi Lachlan,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 31/05/2007, at 4:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
However, my question remains this: if not defined in a
relationship where does the developer define the delete rules
Hi again,
On 31/05/2007, at 4:32 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 4:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
However, my question remains this: if not defined in a
relationship where does
Hi Aristedes,
On May 30, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
While it might be possible theoretically to define a different
column in the database to be used as the association column to
join rows of a subclass and a superclass ta
39 matches
Mail list logo
