rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Public Data Model
Date Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:14:18 GMT
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Erin Noe-Payne
<erin.noe.payne@gmail.com>wrote:

> +1 for separating internal model from persistence provider.
>
> Also, do we have demand for xml from the api?
>

I'm making it support both.

>
>
> 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