Yeah, sounds good! Thanks! On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:22 AM Malcolm Edgar <[email protected]> wrote:
> That sounds like a great approach to me. > > regards Malcolm > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:49 PM Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 2020, at 5:54 PM, John Huss <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2) Regarding skipping parsing when just going straight back out again > to > > > serialization - I have felt the reluctance (like you) of parsing this > in > > > those cases. But one thing to think about is that the parser/serializer > > > (let's say Jackson in this case) may have special rules for how types > are > > > outputted like pretty/minified, sorted/unsorted, string/number (for > > > BigDecimal). So skipping that parse/serialization may not actually be > > > desirable, at least not in every case. > > > > Was discussing this offline with Nikita and stumbled on what can be a > good > > solution: > > > > 1. Cayenne would provide a set of "unparsed" wrapper types (Wkt, Json, > > etc.) and the JDBC/SQL machinery around them (ExtendedType, > > SqlTreeProcessor). > > 2. A user who needs a parsed version would create their own types (e.g. > > WktParsed, JsonParsed), and would connect them to Cayenne via a custom > > ValueObjectType [1] (e.g. ValueObjectType<WktParsed, Wkt>). > > > > Such a two-tier approach would allow the users to map persistent > > properties to anything they want without much effort and use their > > preferred third-party parsers. While Cayenne would do all the DB-side > heavy > > lifting. The two parts are cleanly separated. > > > > Andrus > > > > > > [1] https://cayenne.apache.org/docs/4.2/cayenne-guide/#value-object-type >
