Hi all, I understood the points you guys are highlighted. And if some one is willing to mentoring I would like to work on another project idea.
Thanks On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Robert Zeigler < [email protected]> wrote: > I third not going down the annotation route. Frankly, I don't find the > relationship annotations intuitive/easy-to-read at all. :) There are > significant differences in the "default" cayenne behavior and default JPA > behavior (one simple example: Cayenne assumes you want reverse > relationships mapped. Reverse relationships in JPA/Hibernate are, IMO , a > PITA. At least they were the last time I used them). Having used both > Hibernate and Cayenne significantly, each has their merits... but it's nice > to have a different philosophy in the ORM space. It helps spur innovation > and avoid "group think" about the "best" way to do ORM. Also, > annotation-driven "POJOs" are a major pain to debug because they completely > invert the object inheritance, and it's really messed up. :) > > Robert > > On Mar 14, 2014, at 3/142:22 AM , Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Eshan, > > > > Good to see you back :) > > > > I second Ari about annotations. I can think of a few ways to simplify > Cayenne mapping, but annotations is not one of them. We are actually using > annotations, just not for ORM. Not basing our product on annotations gives > us: > > > > * Generic persistent object. > > * No fake POJO - Cayenne objects are "real". > > * Great startup performance. > > > > Re: JPA. We made an effort to implement a Cayenne-based JPA provider in > the past [1], and actually got pretty far with it. Looking back though, it > was a waste of time and clearly showed that if we want to preserve our > philosophy (mainly ObjectContext approach), we should keep going our own > way, and don't try to fit a square peg in a round hole. Actually once we > abandoned the JPA work, lots of innovations have blossomed in Cayenne land > (DI, property expressions to name a few). > > > > So I personally have no interest in either of these ideas. But of course > we have many more other projects :) > > > > > > Now a practical question - anyone in the community is ready to mentor a > GSOC project? Unfortunately I am out - just don't have bandwidth. I am not > even sure if we've already missed the boat with our application this year? > Any takers? > > > > Cheers, > > Andrus > > > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAYJPA/Index > > > > > > On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Eshan Sudharaka <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Aristedes , > >> > >> Actually what I though is if we can support JPA standards (purely) like > >> hibernate it is very easier to switch from > >> ORM to other. In addition we can have cayenne specific entity relates > >> functions(Vendor specific) . I am not sure how far this > >> idea is practical for end users. > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected] > >wrote: > >> > >>> Cayenne's concept of a data model is pretty much at the core of the > whole > >>> library. To replace that, and the fact that entities are all > subclasses of > >>> Cayenne entity classes, doesn't seem to be particularly helpful. > >>> > >>> It is fairly trivial to change the velocity templates to add some > >>> annotations to the generated classes, if that helps with your > readability. > >>> > >>> Having said that, we are always open to ideas and contributions. But I > >>> think your proposal for this idea needs to be more defined and narrow > in > >>> scope. Perhaps a conversion between JPA annotations and cayenne > modeler XML? > >>> > >>> > >>> Ari > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 14/03/2014 3:32pm, Eshan Sudharaka wrote: > >>>> Hi Aristedes , > >>>> > >>>> I have used cayenne for object relational mapping for some projects. > And > >>> I rather prefer to have annotation > >>>> support like we have in Hibernate and its really readable when we have > >>> annotations for object relationships. > >>>> > >>>> Could you please share your thoughts on this. Like how feasible this > is > >>> and the scope is with in or beyond the gsoc > >>>> time line. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected] > <mailto: > >>> [email protected]>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Eshan, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your interest in the Apache Cayenne project. While we > >>> have no formal GSOC 2014 projects planned, perhaps you'd like to > propose > >>> the areas in which you are interested in Cayenne. What is your > experience > >>> with Cayenne and what areas would you like to work on? > >>>> > >>>> Ari Maniatis > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 14/03/2014 11:30am, Eshan Sudharaka wrote: > >>>>> Dear Andrus,Ksenia and the members > >>>>> > >>>>> Thia is regarding for getting some information regarding GSOC 2014 > >>> program. > >>>>> Since I am following masters I am eligible for working on a sumer > >>> of code > >>>>> project. So I am planing to use my summer time for a GSOC project. > >>>>> > >>>>> It would be really helpful for me to get some details for the GSOC > >>> plans in > >>>>> this year. (Probably a product development or a feature) > >>>>> > >>>>> Looking forward work with Cayenne team in this sumer. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> --------------------------> > >>>> Aristedes Maniatis > >>>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> /*~Thanks & Regards~*/ > >>>> /**/*/ > >>>> /* > >>>> Eshan Sudharaka > >>>> http://esudharaka.blogspot.com/ > >>> > >>> -- > >>> --------------------------> > >>> Aristedes Maniatis > >>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *~Thanks & Regards~* > >> > >> Eshan Sudharaka > >> http://esudharaka.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- *~Thanks & Regards~* Eshan Sudharaka http://esudharaka.blogspot.com/
