Hi Benjamin, Thanks for your reply. Reading the http://www.doctrine-project.org/blog/php-5-3-and-doctrine-2-0-teaser doctrine 2.0 teaser , I noticed that Doctrine planned to eliminate the need for an entity to extend from a base class. Althought, it sounds like writing an entity class is a little bit easier, since it can be any plain old php object, the reasons were not given. Then you said, a such base class is the root of all evils... Could you please, explain the difficulties you faced with entities having to extend a base class?
greetings, -Arié beberlei wrote: > > > Hello, > > Its not a failure to recognize that a proposal generates lots of > "duplicate > code", which is currently better solved in other projects. This also > has nothing to do with Zend, since the component was approved > under the premise that its community contributed. An ORM is a huge > undertaking and it creates lots of code that has to be maintained > and I as a community member decided that its probably not doable. > > Xyster ORM maybe existing for some time, however i haven't seen it in > use. Additionally although they claim not be ActiveRecord you have > to extend a certain base class for your entities to work with it. > This is the root of all evil in ORMs and the reason why enterprise > ORMs don't require it. > > The lead developer of Doctrine is indeed paid by SensioLabs, however > the Source Code is under the LGPL, which is a perfectly compatible > license with New BSD and doesn't restrict the use of the code. > There is also no effort whatsoever by SensioLabs to control Doctrine. > > Looking at it the other way, Doctrine is already several years old, > plus it benefits from lots of experience of the PEAR MDB2 component > aswell as others (eZ Components, ZF). The code basis is pretty robust > and there are people working on its perfection full time, which makes > it a pretty good choice for Enterprises. > > Going for Integration with Doctrine in my opinion is one step further > to professionaling php as an enterprise language. The different PHP > communities where cooking their own soups for the last 10 years. Although > I like competition very much, one should also make rational decisions > when it is better not to reinvent the wheel. > > greetings, > Benjamin > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:51:38 -0800 (PST), Arié Bénichou > <arie.benic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't understand why you did not use http://xyster.libreworks.net/ >> Xyster >> ORM >> It makes use of the Data Mapper Pattern and comes with a Unit of Work. >> Doctrine is shifting to this approach for the version 2.0, but it's still >> an >> alpha release. >> It's a pity for you to have failed this way, because, Doctrine is >> associated >> to SensioLabs, the french agency who developps the Symfony Framework. > > -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp648011p787474.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
