Re: Cocoa Technologies Back-Story?
Re: Cocoa Technologies Back-Story?
- Subject: Re: Cocoa Technologies Back-Story?
- From: Marcel Weiher <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 16:23:24 +0100
On 30 Apr 2005, at 22:56, Daniel Jalkut wrote:
I am troubled by the "it fell out of the sky" aspect of some newer
Cocoa technologies.
So am I. Especially as it isn't clear wether Apple are just not
mentioning previous work and other influences, or wether the engineers
working on these technologies are genuinely unaware of them.
[snip]
Bindings:
Whose idea was it try to eliminate the controller layer?
Is there a history to trying to do this outside of Apple/NeXT?
Yes. Many modern Smalltalk systems implement a ValueHolder object,
which you can think of as a first-class variable. Also, there has been
tons of work on constraint systems, going back to the late 70ies.
These systems go quite a bit beyond what bindings can offer,in terms of
capability, conceptual integrity and elegance of use. A point could be
made that limiting that power is a good idea, but bindings don't appear
to be a conscious decision to take a constraint system and limit its
power.
Core Data:
Is this database technology?
Is it "normal" to apply database technology to application design?
Absolutely. In many shops, the very definition of 'application' seems
to be 'something that maintains tables in a database'. This narrow
approach leads to all sort of mayhem.
Is there a debate about whether database "entity modeling" should be
used in desktop applications?
I don't think there's a debate.
Should I feel warm and fuzzy about designing my application's model
this way instead of in a more "dictionary-oriented" way?
"dictionary-oriented"? How about "object oriented"?
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