rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Public Data Model
Date Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:45:23 GMT
+1 for separating internal model from persistence provider.

Also, do we have demand for xml from the api?


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Venkatesh S R <soft.venky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Team,
>
> I am Venkatesh and I am new to this group :). But reading this email, I
> recognize this problem and +1 for the same. I want sure if we have taken a
> look at Dozer, its very intuitive and simple for Model Mappings.
>
> Thanks
> Venkatesh
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Chris Geer wrote:
> >
> > > As I've been working on this new web service layer it's becoming
> clearer
> > > that we need to separate our public model from our private model since
> we
> > > need to control serialization/deserialzation. A great example of this
> is
> > > the User password field. It's needed internally but should never be
> sent
> > > externally. The challenge we have right now is it's up to the
> persistence
> > > provider to annotate their objects with the proper serialization data
> > > (JAXB/JSON) so each provider could serialize/deserialize differently.
> > There
> > > is also a challenge of deserializing into the right object type.
> > >
> > > My suggestion is we create a separate model that is used for the web
> > > services that can be converted to the correct backend datatype. There
> is
> > > probably some ways to use inheritance and stuff to simplify this but
> I'll
> > > have to play and see what works. We'll also have to move away from the
> > > Spring OXM marshaling approach since that only works with Spring
> Web/MVC
> > > not JAX-RS.
> >
> >
> > +1.  There is a good chance we may want the modem exposed to be different
> > than the internal one in terms of fields anyway.  For instance, we
> probably
> > want to expose regionWidgets the way they are used in the client,
> including
> > security tokens.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any concerns about this?
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message