The primary reason for Java now is because of the JDBC libraries. Historically, no one wanted to write Obj-C database drivers. But maybe there will be a business in the future for OS X/iOS direct access to large databases, but Apple certainly will not care.
-- Paul Yu Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Daniel Beatty wrote: > Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen, > I tend to agree with Chuck on the notion that this could be a costly marriage > without some kind of stability assurance. My recommendation would be to have > Cayenne be standardized so that at least there is both proper documentation > and be able to say what Cayenne is intended to be (EOF like or otherwise). > > I did some work on the subject whether WO/EOF is still king of the ORMs for > my dissertation qualifiers in November of 2011. I found that while there is > no notion of a standardized ORM out there, EOF has a de facto standard due to > its age and open source varieties in both Objective-C and Java forms. I > can see why Apple has been reluctant to take it to a standards body. Namely, > why teach the whole industry how to build something that makes your company > so successful. None the less, there are enough of us that could easily > reverse engineer EOF along with Cayenne to help formalize such a standard > with say the Open Grid Forum (OGF). > > Of course, there is probably nothing that can be done about the language of > choice. According to the TIOBE index, the three most popular languages as > far as applications built by them are in order C, Java, and Objective-C. > Popularity does not necessarily give us good languages from an academic point > of view, but there are some blessings to be had from those top three. Of > course, Objective-C did rise this last month to surpass C++, C#, PHP, and > Visual Basic. What does Chuck say if people are using those languages, of > their own free will? > > V/R, > > > > > Dan Beatty, Ph.D. > Texas Tech University, Alumni > dan.bea...@mac.com (mailto:dan.bea...@ttu.edu) > https://sites.google.com/site/allnightstarparty/home > (http://web.me.com/danielbeatty/My_Home_Page/Welcome.html) > (806)438-6620 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2012, at 1:20 PM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com > (mailto:arosenzw...@clinworx.com) wrote: > > Hi WOrriors, > > > > I have mixed feelings. > > > > It's obvious when you look at Cayenne the original developers had used EOF > > before and wanted to make an open source clone. They also wanted to make it > > better, if possible, than EOF. > > > > It's been a while but when I looked at it I was put off by some things. > > They questioned "Why do you need, > > *addObjectsToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey()*" So they just made it > > automatic that when you set a relationship it always does both sides. You > > don't need to call a special method. But in my mind, sometimes you don't > > like the way the model was made and may not want to start a war with > > another engineer that created an ugly back relationship. You can, in EOF, > > choose when you truly want to bring in both sides of the object graph and > > when you don't want to. > > > > John surely knows more than I, and it probably is the closest fit to EOF > > that you can find anywhere and is probably superior to EOF in many ways. > > > > It was really nice to see nobody lamenting and begging for Apple to change > > things. It was really cool to see Chuck ask for a show of hands to say > > "Let's rewrite WO and make it truly ours." It's exciting, yes, but I'm > > still torn. > > > > Has someone moved our cheese? (taking a nod to Paul Yu) > > > > WO / EOF is working reasonably well for us. We are still assuming that this > > remains the ultimate way to develop Internet apps. Has any of us truly > > looked elsewhere? I mean, if it is still king then it might be worth the > > effort to get a truly open-source base that we can all be proud of. > > > > For me WO / EOF was a couple of things. It was simple to install and deploy > > back in the .dmg days. It's harder now. It was also a really cool > > abstraction above RDBMS. You can almost truly feel that you are working > > with objects even though they are persisted in a relational data store. As > > perfect as this mapping layer is, it still has some hiccups. It can never > > be as clean as if you were saving true objects directly in your object > > database. > > > > Sacrilege, yes! I do have a wandering eye. I wonder why must I still use > > Object-Relational mapping tools, EOF / Cayenne / or otherwise. It's 2012, I > > want to save my objects as objects and migrate them too. I don't want a > > mapping layer anymore. I want to use Gemstone or something like it. > > > > I don't want a java dialect (WO) that feels a bit like SmallTalk. I don't > > want an Objective-C that feels a bit like SmallTalk. I don't want dead > > languages. Yes, Eclipse makes java code almost come alive but it's more > > like the "living dead" or the "undead." I want my objects alive all the > > time. I don't want some bloated app like Eclipse to puff up my objects and > > pretend they are alive. I want fully integrated tools that just work > > including distributed version control, etc. I want the real SmallTalk. > > While other languages are dead, Smalltalk is a living language that refuses > > to die. It is uber productive. It's the xombi of the object oriented > > languages. > > > > I wonder if our collective talents and efforts might be better aimed at > > some cheesier cheese. Seaside could make for a better way to WO. > > > > -- Aaron > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:35:48 -0700 > > From: Chuck Hill <ch...@global-village.net > > (mailto:ch...@global-village.net)> > > To: Theodore Petrosky <tedp...@yahoo.com (mailto:tedp...@yahoo.com)> > > Cc: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com (mailto:webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > > Subject: Re: Migrating from EOF to Cayenne > > Message-ID: <78867b57-6ba2-4dbf-816f-c783eac33...@global-village.net > > (mailto:78867b57-6ba2-4dbf-816f-c783eac33...@global-village.net)> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > I agree that we need to more closely examine Cayenne before jumping in with > > both feet. How mature are the tools? What is the functionality gap? How > > important is the missing functionality? How costly is adding any needed > > functionality? Will the missing functionality fit in with the Cayenne > > architecture? How stable is it? How well does it scale (scaling is more > > than multi-threaded EOF)? And Cayenne is only EOAccess/EOControl. What do > > we do about the presentation layer? Getting rid of 2/3 of WO still leaves > > you with WO. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com > > (mailto:Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)) > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/danielbeatty%40mac.com > > > > This email sent to danielbea...@mac.com (mailto:danielbea...@mac.com) > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com > (mailto:Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/pyu%40mac.com > > This email sent to p...@mac.com (mailto:p...@mac.com)
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
