Re: ADC Core Data article
Re: ADC Core Data article
- Subject: Re: ADC Core Data article
- From: Marcel Weiher <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 01:46:00 +0100
On 8 Apr 2005, at 10:50, Paul Szego wrote:
As noted earlier, however, it also solves a much more difficult
problem, and one that really only affects data objects. Given the
functionality that's provided for free, requiring that your model
classes inherit (ultimately) from NSManagedObject instead of
NSObject does not seem too onerous (I suspect in most cases this
will simply involve adding 7 characters to your declaration...).
Forcing someone to extend a specific base class in order to work
with a framework is fundamentally flawed, and not necessary.
Precisely. See: Architectural Mismatch or, Why it's hard to build
systems out of existing parts, by David Garlan, Robert Allen, and
John Ockerbloom ( http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~able/publications/
archmismatch-icse17/ ) I don't remember wether they mention this one
in particular, but it's fairly easy to see in that context.
[Agreement with pretty much everything else, so snipped]
Of course, there is *one* very specific benefit to this: lock-in.
"Thou shalt have no frameworks beside me!" Lock-in into a framework
that is Apple proprietary, eschewing the mechanisms already provided
in the open-source language that its built on in favor of an Apple-
patented mechanism. Yes, KVC is patented, though I can't for the
life of me figure out how they got that one through the check for
prior art. Or considering the prior art, through the check for non-
obviousness. Har har...
Oh, and with *completely* proprietary datastores! So if you base
your persistent store on CoreData, your file-format is owned by
Apple. Cool! I think I'll pass.
Cheers,
Marcel
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden