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.

Reply via email to