GenericValue without field checking
Locked
GenericValue without field checking
 
|
Hi,
I have a usecase where I need to store additional fields (which are actually not in the table) for Product in GenericValue. Current implementation of Entity engine doesnt seem like it supports it. Does anyone know of a way around? e.g. I would like to add couple of fake fields to Product entity like Brief Description, Marketing Description but dont want to worry about persisting it - just want to be able to "put" them in the genericvalue and then access it in the page. I know one way would be to create a map (like context and put legal GenericValue product and those additional fields in the map - I am looking to see if it can be done just by using GenericValue itself and not additional objects. Thanks |
|
|
Ritz
The map thing you describe works a charm. I've done it myself lots. You can make lists of these maps and pass them to your display code just as you would a list of GenericValues. GenericEntity (on which GenericValue is derived) has code to check if the field exists when you call put() on it, so you have to build one from scratch if you want to use as you want. GenericValue may also in some cases be immutable. Much simpler to use a Map. Then you can use map.putAll(genericValue) If you insist on using GenericValue, there is a GenericValue.create(ModelEntity modelEntity, Map fields) that would work for you. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Ritz123 [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:03 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: GenericValue without field checking Hi, I have a usecase where I need to store additional fields (which are actually not in the table) for Product in GenericValue. Current implementation of Entity engine doesnt seem like it supports it. Does anyone know of a way around? e.g. I would like to add couple of fake fields to Product entity like Brief Description, Marketing Description but dont want to worry about persisting it - just want to be able to "put" them in the genericvalue and then access it in the page. I know one way would be to create a map (like context and put legal GenericValue product and those additional fields in the map - I am looking to see if it can be done just by using GenericValue itself and not additional objects. Thanks -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GenericValue-without-field-checking-tp16592940p1659294 0.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 8:23 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 8:23 AM |
RE: GenericValue without field checking
|
|
Skip,
Thanks for the response. Creating a Map would be one way to do it - since anyway GenericValues are Maps under the hood. The other ways would be to create GenericValueEx extending GenericValue and overriding get and put methods catching exception and storing those fields in another map inside the derived class. or use containment pattern and have GenericValue as contained object with in GenericValueEx and add GenericValue methods as and when needed to the derived class. >If you insist on using GenericValue, there is a >GenericValue.create(ModelEntity modelEntity, Map fields) that would work for you. Even that throws IllegalArgumentException - at least from the code thats what it seems like. The only method that does NOT throw the exception but ignores additional values is makeValidValue() from delegator.
|
|
|
Dozens of ways to skin a cat. Sounds like you have considered all of them.
Skip -----Original Message----- From: Ritz123 [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:53 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: GenericValue without field checking Skip, Thanks for the response. Creating a Map would be one way to do it - since anyway GenericValues are Maps under the hood. The other ways would be to create GenericValueEx extending GenericValue and overriding get and put methods catching exception and storing those fields in another map inside the derived class. or use containment pattern and have GenericValue as contained object with in GenericValueEx and add GenericValue methods as and when needed to the derived class. >If you insist on using GenericValue, there is a >GenericValue.create(ModelEntity modelEntity, Map fields) that would work for you. Even that throws IllegalArgumentException - at least from the code thats what it seems like. The only method that does NOT throw the exception but ignores additional values is makeValidValue() from delegator. skip@theDevers wrote: > > Ritz > > The map thing you describe works a charm. I've done it myself lots. You > can make lists of these maps and pass them to your display code just as > you > would a list of GenericValues. > > GenericEntity (on which GenericValue is derived) has code to check if the > field exists when you call put() on it, so you have to build one from > scratch if you want to use as you want. GenericValue may also in some > cases > be immutable. Much simpler to use a Map. > > Then you can use map.putAll(genericValue) > > If you insist on using GenericValue, there is a > GenericValue.create(ModelEntity modelEntity, Map fields) that would work > for > you. > > Skip > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ritz123 [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:03 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: GenericValue without field checking > > > > Hi, > > I have a usecase where I need to store additional fields (which are > actually > not in the table) for Product in GenericValue. Current implementation of > Entity engine doesnt seem like it supports it. > > Does anyone know of a way around? e.g. I would like to add couple of fake > fields to Product entity like Brief Description, Marketing Description but > dont want to worry about persisting it - just want to be able to "put" > them > in the genericvalue and then access it in the page. > > I know one way would be to create a map (like context and put legal > GenericValue product and those additional fields in the map - I am looking > to see if it can be done just by using GenericValue itself and not > additional objects. > > Thanks > -- > View this message in context: > > 0.html > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 > 8:23 AM > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 > 8:23 AM > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GenericValue-without-field-checking-tp16592940p1659388 4.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 8:23 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 8:23 AM |
Re: GenericValue without field checking
|
|
In reply to this post by Ritesh Trivedi
Keep in mind that any custom classes you create will have to be
maintained. It would be preferable to follow Skip's suggestion. -Adrian Ritz123 wrote: > Skip, > > Thanks for the response. > > Creating a Map would be one way to do it - since anyway GenericValues are > Maps under the hood. The other ways would be to create GenericValueEx > extending GenericValue and overriding get and put methods catching exception > and storing those fields in another map inside the derived class. or use > containment pattern and have GenericValue as contained object with in > GenericValueEx and add GenericValue methods as and when needed to the > derived class. > >> If you insist on using GenericValue, there is a >> GenericValue.create(ModelEntity modelEntity, Map fields) that would work > for you. > Even that throws IllegalArgumentException - at least from the code thats > what it seems like. The only method that does NOT throw the exception but > ignores additional values is makeValidValue() from delegator. > > > skip@theDevers wrote: >> Ritz >> >> The map thing you describe works a charm. I've done it myself lots. You >> can make lists of these maps and pass them to your display code just as >> you >> would a list of GenericValues. >> >> GenericEntity (on which GenericValue is derived) has code to check if the >> field exists when you call put() on it, so you have to build one from >> scratch if you want to use as you want. GenericValue may also in some >> cases >> be immutable. Much simpler to use a Map. >> >> Then you can use map.putAll(genericValue) >> >> If you insist on using GenericValue, there is a >> GenericValue.create(ModelEntity modelEntity, Map fields) that would work >> for >> you. >> >> Skip >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ritz123 [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:03 AM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: GenericValue without field checking >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I have a usecase where I need to store additional fields (which are >> actually >> not in the table) for Product in GenericValue. Current implementation of >> Entity engine doesnt seem like it supports it. >> >> Does anyone know of a way around? e.g. I would like to add couple of fake >> fields to Product entity like Brief Description, Marketing Description but >> dont want to worry about persisting it - just want to be able to "put" >> them >> in the genericvalue and then access it in the page. >> >> I know one way would be to create a map (like context and put legal >> GenericValue product and those additional fields in the map - I am looking >> to see if it can be done just by using GenericValue itself and not >> additional objects. >> >> Thanks >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/GenericValue-without-field-checking-tp16592940p1659294 >> 0.html >> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 >> 8:23 AM >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1359 - Release Date: 4/4/2008 >> 8:23 AM >> >> >> > |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |