• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: decoupling EOF
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: decoupling EOF


  • Subject: Re: decoupling EOF
  • From: Colin Clark <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:16:58 -0500


Doubtless, this will bring PA out for a quick rant on this subject. :-)

Those rants are always enjoyable, at least in that "the emperor has no clothes!" sort of way.


To add my two cents to the whole EOF without WOF thing, it's certainly possible. We have a whole pure-ish Java layer for importing and exporting data in XML format. Of course, heavy use of our data model is required for data structuring, validation, and persistence, so this layer depends on EOF. As a result, this layer also makes extensive use of the Foundation kit. Too bad.

The bottom line, as several people have said, is that you need to morph back and forth between the Java collections API and the Foundation Kit. It can be a lot of work. It's long overdue that Apple releases versions of the Foundation collections that are API-compatible with Java collections. File a bug!

NSArray and NSDictionary both do define methods that will return pure Java collections (Vectors and Hashtables) from an instance of a Foundation collection. Unfortunately it will be your job to push the Java equivalents back into the Foundation versions. This can't be terribly efficient, so the alternative is to perhaps roll your own classes that contain an underlying NSArray or NSDictionary but actually implement List and Map interfaces. Basically an adaptor between the Foundation world and the rest of the world. ;) As long as your Java-based tools are well written and depend on the Collections interfaces rather than on concrete implementations, things should go well.

In the end, if you're looking at this for a new project and you've already decided on Tapestry, it seems like Cayenne might be the better choice. If you're not stuck on Tapestry, EOF and WOF still make a nice pair. Despite how much I love it, I can't help but feeling like EOF is not so much "mature" as it is "antique." Elegant, hopelessly fragile, and difficult to integrate into a modern environment.

I hope that helps,

Colin

---
Colin Clark
Dynamic Web and Database Development Lead,
Resource Centre for Academic Technology,
University of Toronto

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: decoupling EOF
      • From: PA <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: decoupling EOF (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: decoupling EOF
  • Next by Date: Re: decoupling EOF
  • Previous by thread: Re: decoupling EOF
  • Next by thread: Re: decoupling EOF
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread