List:Internals« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Øystein Grøvlen Date:May 25 2009 10:03am
Subject:Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)
View as plain text  
Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Øystein Grøvlen <Oystein.Grovlen@stripped> [09/05/22 21:05]:
>> So far my Value object knows nothing about arithmetics, all they know  
>> about is how to convert between types.  However, it needs to distinguish  
>> between more than just four types.  For example, conversion between  
>> integer and string will be different for a Field_timestamp than for a  
>> Field_long.
> 
> This just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying that
> conversion between an integer and a string will be different
> depending whether this integer represents a datetime or, well, an
> integer. 
> 
> Isn't it easier to say (and code) that a conversion from an
> integer to a string is not the same as conversion from a datetime to
> a string?  What am I missing?

That's really what I tried to say.  Both integer and datetime will 
internally be represented by a longlong, but the conversion from 
longlong to string will be different.

> 
> Perhaps we need to talk on IRC to better understand the language.
> 
>> AFAIU, this is not within the scope of the task I have been given and  
>> how it is reflected in the worklog description.  However, the worklog  
>> has not yet been approved so it remains to see if I have misunderstood.
> 
> What is the scope of the task? 

 From the worklog HLS: The main value of this task is to centralize the 
data conversion between types.

> 
>> The way I have understood it from discussions in the re-engineering  
>> team, I am not going to transfer ownership of data from Item to Value.  
>> So far, Value objects are just used for return values that can easily  
>> converted to other types.
> 
> A Value object that doesn't hold any value... perhaps should be
> called something else.

The Value object holds a value, but Value objects are returned by value. 
  Hence, I do think we can talk about ownership here.

-- 
Øystein
Thread
Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen22 May
  • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov22 May
    • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Alex Esterkin22 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker22 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Alex Esterkin22 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker22 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Sergei Golubchik23 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov23 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker23 May
    • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen22 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov22 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Alex Esterkin22 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen25 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen24 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov24 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov23 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen25 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Michael Widenius6 Jun
            • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen8 Jun
            • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes8 Jun
              • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes8 Jun
  • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes24 May
    • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen25 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes26 May
    • Re: [Drizzle-discuss] Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jim Starkey28 May
Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker22 May