I believe the takeaway here is that Cayenne is indeed under active development, which is nice :).
- hugi On 12.7.2012, at 17:07, John Huss wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Hugi Thordarson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Cayenne is still missing a lot of functionality when compared to > >> EOF/Wonder and generally feels less mature (understandably, since EOF is > >> ancient). This is perhaps not such a huge problem, since functionality can > >> always be added—but there is indeed a *lot* of work to be done to reach > >> feature parity with EOF. > > > > That seems like an overstatement to me. What things is it missing that you > > need? > > Well, it isn't exactly "big things" that are missing, but rather an > aggregation of a lot of small things. Things I can live without, but would > rather not. EOF, Foundation, Wonder and the tools have 20 years of refinement > and integration in their design so moving from EOF to Cayenne feels a little > like moving from a Mercedes to a Wolkswagen Bug. > > Lack of IDE support, > > There is an Eclipse plugin, but it is not totally baked yet. > > no prototypes, > > Cayenne already does the "switching databases" part of prototypes. The > "faster model creation" part would be a nice add perhaps, but you get part of > it (the java type assigment) already in Cayenne by auto-generating the > ObjEntity from the DbEntity. > > no KVC > > This is already in ERCayenne > > , "getAccessor" (ugh) > > The templates in ERCayenne don't use the get prefix > > , limited support for inheritance, > > True > > no ERXKey means no type safe queries and strings everywhere, > > ERXKey is in ERCayenneExample and I'll be committing a version Cayenne itself > in the next few days. > > somewhat buggy modeler > > I fixed a couple of the more annoying problems last week. Other than that > I'm not aware of any behaviors that are truly bugs. But usability could > certainly be improved. > > with no support for cross-model relationships > > This is not true anymore if it was before. 3.1 includes the idea of a > default node (basically a connection dictionary), so you can load models that > are generic, framework level and use them along with your own model. > > , no crossing relationships in raw row fetches (which makes it harder to > create reports from huge object graphs) > > True, this is the biggest gap I've come across - I have an app that does > exactly that. However, there are a few built-in alternatives, namely > SQLTemplate and EJBQLQuery. But if you have a lot of this in your app, you'll > probably want to wait to consider migrating. > > , no Project Wonder EO stuff etc. etc. > > I have some Cayenne implementations of the specific utilities that I used > from Wonder, but yes, this represents work to be done. > > Now, I know this comparison is unfair to Cayenne which is in fact great, and > Andrus and the others have done an amazing job. EOF is just hard to beat, > because EOF is very, very good. And as I said, Cayenne will no doubt get > there, I just believe it will take a lot of work. > > Just a little work I think. The things that have to be done are almost all > approachable by average developers. > > > The only reasonable way to do a re-implementation of EOF would be to start > > with Cayenne. It doesnt have the same API as EOF, but that could be done; > > that hard work has already been done, only the API would need change. But > > I think there are advantages in trying to merge with the Cayenne community > > rather than taking it and forking it. > > I agree. If they're compatible it's probably the way to go. > > - hugi > _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
