On 23 Sep 2010, at 07:39, Tito Ciuro wrote:

> Hm. That would be discussed better on a White Paper or similar. There are 
> countless tutorials and documents about Core Data already. What I can do 
> however is to provide a small example to illustrate how NanoStore works.
> 
> I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Core Data stores the data 
> atomically for both, XML and binary formats. That, if I'm not mistaken 
> requires the datafile to be read in memory.

That's incorrect, CoreData gives you the choice of XML, binary or SQLite 
backends.  When using the SQLite one it reads the data lazily.

> Not so with NanoStore: the SQLite database is the storage system and the API 
> stores and retrieves dictionaries. Another strong point is that you can store 
> whatever you want: from the developer's perspective, there is no schema, so 
> objects of different "weight" or complexity can be stored with ease and 
> retrieved back verbatim.

That's certainly a neat trick, I can imagine that lets you get started with 
this a lot faster than with CoreData.

> Now... I like Core Data. I really do. But some times I get the feeling that 
> it's too heavy for simple tasks. Plus, making CD work requires some reading, 
> while NanoStore requires a fraction of the time to get it working. I believe 
> that many developers will welcome this addition, as they will be able to 
> concentrate their effort on other parts of their app. In essence, I designed 
> NanoStore to be simple, relatively powerful and fast, while demanding a 
> minimum effort from the developer. Time will tell if I'm wrong :-)

Sounds like a neat middle ground, I'll give it a go some time soon!

Bob

_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com

Reply via email to