Yeah, I agree. The point we were making was that we can't really do without the "squeezer" functionality. We don't want Tapestry to include any hibernate-specific stuff. We just don't want it to take away the feature that let us use Hibernate effectively.
-----Original Message----- From: Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:06 PM To: Tapestry development Subject: Re: [Discuss] Friendly URLs as the default But one thing is to *support* a Hibernate specific solution and another to *implement* it. Even if Tapestry doesn't support Hibernate directly, it can support a Hibernate oriented integration layer, IMO. -- Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi DTQ Software Web Application Design and Programming http://www.dtqsoftware.com Geoff Longman wrote: > I'm not in favour of any Hibernate specific solution. What about > Cayenne? TopLink? > > Hibernate is the flavour de jour. This may sound nuts but someday > Hibernate will be eclipsed (as will Tapestry but I won't got there!). > > Squeezers are customizable enough to support any number of > necessities, persistent objects just being one. > > Geoff > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
