| Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen, I tend to agree with Chuck on the notion that this could be a costly marriage without some kind of stability assurance. My recommendation would be to have Cayenne be standardized so that at least there is both proper documentation and be able to say what Cayenne is intended to be (EOF like or otherwise).
I did some work on the subject whether WO/EOF is still king of the ORMs for my dissertation qualifiers in November of 2011. I found that while there is no notion of a standardized ORM out there, EOF has a de facto standard due to its age and open source varieties in both Objective-C and Java forms. I can see why Apple has been reluctant to take it to a standards body. Namely, why teach the whole industry how to build something that makes your company so successful. None the less, there are enough of us that could easily reverse engineer EOF along with Cayenne to help formalize such a standard with say the Open Grid Forum (OGF).
Of course, there is probably nothing that can be done about the language of choice. According to the TIOBE index, the three most popular languages as far as applications built by them are in order C, Java, and Objective-C. Popularity does not necessarily give us good languages from an academic point of view, but there are some blessings to be had from those top three. Of course, Objective-C did rise this last month to surpass C++, C#, PHP, and Visual Basic. What does Chuck say if people are using those languages, of their own free will?
V/R,
Texas Tech University, Alumni
Hi WOrriors,
I have mixed feelings.
It's obvious when you look at Cayenne
the original developers had used EOF before and wanted to make an open
source clone. They also wanted to make it better, if possible, than EOF.
It's been a while but when I looked
at it I was put off by some things. They questioned "Why do you need,
*addObjectsToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey()*" So they just made
it automatic that when you set a relationship it always does both sides.
You don't need to call a special method. But in my mind, sometimes you
don't like the way the model was made and may not want to start a war with
another engineer that created an ugly back relationship. You can, in EOF,
choose when you truly want to bring in both sides of the object graph and
when you don't want to.
John surely knows more than I, and it
probably is the closest fit to EOF that you can find anywhere and is probably
superior to EOF in many ways.
It was really nice to see nobody lamenting
and begging for Apple to change things. It was really cool to see Chuck
ask for a show of hands to say "Let's rewrite WO and make it truly
ours." It's exciting, yes, but I'm still torn.
Has someone moved our cheese? (taking
a nod to Paul Yu)
WO / EOF is working reasonably well
for us. We are still assuming that this remains the ultimate way to develop
Internet apps. Has any of us truly looked elsewhere? I mean, if it is still
king then it might be worth the effort to get a truly open-source base
that we can all be proud of.
For me WO / EOF was a couple of things.
It was simple to install and deploy back in the .dmg days. It's harder
now. It was also a really cool abstraction above RDBMS. You can almost
truly feel that you are working with objects even though they are persisted
in a relational data store. As perfect as this mapping layer is, it still
has some hiccups. It can never be as clean as if you were saving true objects
directly in your object database.
Sacrilege, yes! I do have a wandering
eye. I wonder why must I still use Object-Relational mapping tools, EOF
/ Cayenne / or otherwise. It's 2012, I want to save my objects as objects
and migrate them too. I don't want a mapping layer anymore. I want to use
Gemstone or something like it.
I don't want a java dialect (WO) that
feels a bit like SmallTalk. I don't want an Objective-C that feels a bit
like SmallTalk. I don't want dead languages. Yes, Eclipse makes java code
almost come alive but it's more like the "living dead" or the
"undead." I want my objects alive all the time. I don't want
some bloated app like Eclipse to puff up my objects and pretend they are
alive. I want fully integrated tools that just work including distributed
version control, etc. I want the real SmallTalk. While other languages
are dead, Smalltalk is a living language that refuses to die. It is uber
productive. It's the xombi of the object oriented languages.
I wonder if our collective talents and
efforts might be better aimed at some cheesier cheese. Seaside could make
for a better way to WO.
-- Aaron
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:35:48 -0700
From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
To: Theodore Petrosky <email@hidden>
Cc: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Migrating from EOF to Cayenne
Message-ID: <email@hidden">email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
I agree that we need to more closely examine Cayenne before jumping in
with both feet. How mature are the tools? What is the functionality
gap? How important is the missing functionality? How costly
is adding any needed functionality? Will the missing functionality
fit in with the Cayenne architecture? How stable is it? How
well does it scale (scaling is more than multi-threaded EOF)? And
Cayenne is only EOAccess/EOControl. What do we do about the presentation
layer? Getting rid of 2/3 of WO still leaves you with WO.
Chuck
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
|