Re: "extends EOGenericRecord" or "extends EOCustomObject"?
Re: "extends EOGenericRecord" or "extends EOCustomObject"?
- Subject: Re: "extends EOGenericRecord" or "extends EOCustomObject"?
- From: Ricardo Strausz <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:26:43 -0600
From the Book (Enterprise Objects, p.32):
"These two code listings demonstrate the primary differences between
EOGenericRecord subclasses and EOCustomObject subclasses. Listing 3-1
(page 30) contains no fields for the objects attributes; they are
stored in a dictionary that the class maintains internally. Contrast
this with Listing 3-2 (page 31), which includes fields for the objects
attributes: _bathrooms, _bedrooms, _address, and _features. "
Dino
On Jan 19, 2004, at 11:52, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I actually think it's possible to have the attribute data stored in
instance variables, even in an EOGenericRecord subclass.
The whole thing is very confusing. Near as I can tell, the only reason
both EOCustomObject and EOGenericRecord exist as valid direct
superclasses of your custom EO classes... the only reason is strange
architectural legacies. There's no good reason for it, near as I can
tell. Far as I can tell, EOGenericRecord is the reccomended
superclass to use. That's what I always use. I can't quite figure
out when, if ever, one would want to use EOCustomObject instead,
myself.
--Jonathan
At 5:55 PM -0600 1/15/04, Ricardo Strausz wrote:
IMHO, the main difference is that, when you implement a customObject,
you have the ``variables'' (atributes) at hand so, to access them,
you do not nead to use the accessor methods; this is quite usefull if
you are doing sofisticated logic. The main disadventage is that you
have to take care of some of the ``magic'' provided by a
genericRecord (like notify changes, so they can be spreaded).
I had not notice any adventage in performence (memory, time) while
using customO instead of genericR.
Dino
On Jan 14, 2004, at 6:06, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
Is there anyone out there who is extending EOCustomObject for their
java entity classes rather than extending EOGenericRecord?
What are the primary benefits to using EOCustomObject over
EOGenericRecord subclasses for EO's?
Besides the extra hand-coding and higher maintenance of
EOCustomObject, is there performance disadvantages (for example
memory usage?)
Any advice is appreciated.
Thanks, K
____________________________________
OS X 10.3.2 / WO 5.2.2 / MySQL 4.0.16
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.