what I exactly mean is the framework creates for each column an id (ID_<column>), a type (TYPE_<column>), a name (NAME_<column>) and at the end the TABLE_NAME field in each manager class, but why don't use the framework for example in FIELD_NAMES or ALL_FIELDS field as TABLE_NAME + "." + NAME_<column> instead of "table.<column>" ?
or in load or save methods why don't use the framework for example "... from " + TABLE_NAME + " where..." instead of ""....from table where..."
thanks in advance...
regards...
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi,
why don't you use these fields in manager classes ?...
regards...
Hi,
COuld you be more precise, I do not follow your thoughts. I'd be happy to answer.
regards,
N.
Hi,
what I exactly mean is the framework creates for each column an id (ID_<column>), a type (TYPE_<column>), a name (NAME_<column>) and at the end the TABLE_NAME field in each manager class, but why don't use the framework for example in FIELD_NAMES or ALL_FIELDS field as TABLE_NAME + "." + NAME_<column> instead of "table.<column>" ?
or in load or save methods why don't use the framework for example "... from " + TABLE_NAME + " where..." instead of ""....from table where..."
thanks in advance...
regards...
Ok, it's clear now :) We will review this part of the generated code and get back to you.
Thanks for the feedback.
N.