Michael, > EOF supported inheritance better (again, Cayenne is improving in that area, > too).
Well the single most important advancement is your memory management as well as maintaining the extremely useful faulting model that EOF did so well. Apple's objective-C library had a *horrible* memory management model that almost ensured that each app leaks memory. > We were all sad to see WO (and EOF) wither and die, but at least T5+Cayenne > seems to work rather well together. Well it has certainly not caught on in the developer community, but surprisingly WebObjects is making Apple a HUGE amount of money. iTunes was built in part with WO, and iTunes just surpassed CD sales. It is sort of ironic that a "dead" library is part of such an historic success story. Joe On Aug 9, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Michael Gentry wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I'm not sure if Cayenne was created to be a next generation EOF or > just an open-source ORM that was heavily influenced by the concepts in > EOF. Andrus could answer that one better. There are still some areas > of EOF that I'd consider superior to Cayenne, namely EOModeler was > nicer than Cayenne Modeler (although Cayenne Modeler is improving) and > EOF supported inheritance better (again, Cayenne is improving in that > area, too). > > We have a lot of WO applications here that are slowly being re-written > to use Tapestry 5 + Cayenne. We were all sad to see WO (and EOF) > wither and die, but at least T5+Cayenne seems to work rather well > together. > > mrg > > PS. I interviewed for a WO job at the USPS. It didn't go so well when > they told me they'd have to do a background investigation check and > I'd have to provide them the addresses I'd lived at the past seven > years. I looked at the interviewer and said, "You are the Post > Office. Shouldn't you know where I've been the last seven years?" He > was not amused. Really. Not. Amused. > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Joe Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey Michael, >> >> this is an aside: >> >> I used to work with EOF some time ago when WebObjects first came out (we did >> a project for USPS). EOF was pretty primitive by todays standards but at >> the time it was an insanely advanced concept. It was my assumption that >> Cayenne was started as a "next generation" EOF (I believe that Cayenne has >> far surpassed EOF now though). Is this a fair characterization? >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Michael Gentry wrote: >> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> In the past I used Cayenne with a legacy database that had 96-bit >>> binary primary keys. I had to create my own Cayenne DB adapter and PK >>> generator and specify using it in Cayenne Modeler. It wasn't too hard >>> to do and worked perfectly with the existing system (which was >>> actually WO/EOF-based). No conflicts since they both used the same >>> key source. >>> >>> That's probably the direction you'll want to head ... >>> >>> mrg >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Joseph Senecal <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Thanks to the help provided from this mailing list, my prototype was done >>>> on time and shows that the concept can work. >>>> >>>> The next problem to solve is how to get a Cayenne program to peacefully >>>> coexist with legacy WebObjects programs that will be inserting records >>>> into the same table. I can restrict the conflict to one table, but that >>>> one table is central to all others and new records could be created by any >>>> process that loads any of the related fact tables. >>>> >>>> The problem is that Cayenne and WebObjects use differently named sequences >>>> to allocate primary keys. These sequences are also formatted differently >>>> because WebObjects allocates primary keys one at a time where Cayenne >>>> allocates primary keys 20 at the time. The obvious solution is to >>>> configure the sequences for different primary key ranges. The problem is >>>> that these programs will be running at over a dozen different sites, which >>>> makes monitoring for exhausting of an assigned range problematic. My boss >>>> would find a different solution, if one is possible. >>>> >>>> I'm sure that combining multiple ORM's has happened before. Does anyone >>>> have advice as to the best way to make them play nicely together? >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >> >>
