You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ojb-dev@db.apache.org by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch> on 2004/11/07 11:26:07 UTC
[OJB 1.1] inconsistent collections
hi all,
i was having a look at our collection in package
org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.
i think we have a problem with the naming and implementation of these
collection. ie. RemovalAwareCollection is actually a RemovalAware_Vector_ and
thus a List. on the other side the RemovalAwareList is never used.
imo we also use too much inheritance instead of using composition. so here's an
opportunity for improvemnet/refactoring ;)
jakob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [OJB 1.1] inconsistent collections
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi all,
i found a small problem in RemovalAwareCollection.
assume the collection holds Proxies of Article and we try to delete a real
materialized Article. see OneToManyTest#testDeleteWithRemovalAwareCollection().
the old implementation of RemovalAware collection did not check whether the
object to be removed is part of the collection:
/**
* @see java.util.Collection#remove(Object)
*/
public boolean remove(Object o)
{
boolean result = super.remove(o);
registerForDeletion(o);
return result;
}
so it registered any object for deletion, no matter if it's part of the collection.
the new implementation checks the result of the remove before registering an object:
/**
* @see java.util.Collection#remove(java.lang.Object)
*/
public boolean remove(Object o)
{
boolean result = super.remove(o);
if (result)
{
registerDelete(o);
}
return result;
}
that's why the new implementation fails on the above mentioned testcase.
imo this is the correct way of doing it, but it is no longer compatible with the
old implementation. what do you think ?
jakob
Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
> hi all,
>
> i have finished the new collections and would like to check it in. the
> implementation is _not_ based on commons-collections but the abstract
> classes could easily replaced by decorators from commons-collections.
>
> many of the old collections are deprecated an i would like to resolve
> this issue after check in of the new collections.
>
> are there any other work in progress in this area ?
>
> jakob
>
> Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> i'd like to use commons-collection 3.x to refactor our collections.
>>
>> afaik torque 3.0.2 does not work with this version of
>> commons-collections.
>> there was a post by tom about integrating commomns-sql
>> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=ojb-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=7465
>>
>>
>> can we now get rid of torque, or switch to a newer version ?
>>
>> jakob
>>
>> Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> i was having a look at our collection in package
>>> org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.
>>>
>>> i think we have a problem with the naming and implementation of these
>>> collection. ie. RemovalAwareCollection is actually a
>>> RemovalAware_Vector_ and thus a List. on the other side the
>>> RemovalAwareList is never used.
>>>
>>> imo we also use too much inheritance instead of using composition. so
>>> here's an opportunity for improvemnet/refactoring ;)
>>>
>>> jakob
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [OJB 1.1] inconsistent collections
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi all,
i have finished the new collections and would like to check it in. the
implementation is _not_ based on commons-collections but the abstract classes
could easily replaced by decorators from commons-collections.
many of the old collections are deprecated an i would like to resolve this issue
after check in of the new collections.
are there any other work in progress in this area ?
jakob
Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
> hi all,
>
> i'd like to use commons-collection 3.x to refactor our collections.
>
> afaik torque 3.0.2 does not work with this version of commons-collections.
> there was a post by tom about integrating commomns-sql
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=ojb-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=7465
>
>
> can we now get rid of torque, or switch to a newer version ?
>
> jakob
>
> Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> i was having a look at our collection in package
>> org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.
>>
>> i think we have a problem with the naming and implementation of these
>> collection. ie. RemovalAwareCollection is actually a
>> RemovalAware_Vector_ and thus a List. on the other side the
>> RemovalAwareList is never used.
>>
>> imo we also use too much inheritance instead of using composition. so
>> here's an opportunity for improvemnet/refactoring ;)
>>
>> jakob
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [OJB 1.1] inconsistent collections
Posted by Brian McCallister <bm...@gmail.com>.
+1 on new commons-collections
I think on Torque, people have been working to replace our usage with
commons-sql
How is commons-sql doing?
-Brian
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:49:51 +0100, Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i'd like to use commons-collection 3.x to refactor our collections.
>
> afaik torque 3.0.2 does not work with this version of commons-collections.
> there was a post by tom about integrating commomns-sql
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=ojb-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=7465
>
> can we now get rid of torque, or switch to a newer version ?
>
> jakob
>
> Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
>
>
>
> > hi all,
> >
> > i was having a look at our collection in package
> > org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.
> >
> > i think we have a problem with the naming and implementation of these
> > collection. ie. RemovalAwareCollection is actually a
> > RemovalAware_Vector_ and thus a List. on the other side the
> > RemovalAwareList is never used.
> >
> > imo we also use too much inheritance instead of using composition. so
> > here's an opportunity for improvemnet/refactoring ;)
> >
> > jakob
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [OJB 1.1] inconsistent collections
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Jakob Braeuchi dijo:
> hi all,
>
> i'd like to use commons-collection 3.x to refactor our collections.
>
> afaik torque 3.0.2 does not work with this version of commons-collections.
> there was a post by tom about integrating commomns-sql
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=ojb-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=7465
>
> can we now get rid of torque, or switch to a newer version ?
Yep. I think torque is broken. I am using OJB with commons-collections 3.1
and works well.
I am +1 to change and perhaps update torque or use commons-sql.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [OJB 1.1] inconsistent collections
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi all,
i'd like to use commons-collection 3.x to refactor our collections.
afaik torque 3.0.2 does not work with this version of commons-collections.
there was a post by tom about integrating commomns-sql
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=ojb-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=7465
can we now get rid of torque, or switch to a newer version ?
jakob
Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
> hi all,
>
> i was having a look at our collection in package
> org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.
>
> i think we have a problem with the naming and implementation of these
> collection. ie. RemovalAwareCollection is actually a
> RemovalAware_Vector_ and thus a List. on the other side the
> RemovalAwareList is never used.
>
> imo we also use too much inheritance instead of using composition. so
> here's an opportunity for improvemnet/refactoring ;)
>
> jakob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org