On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Andreas Grosam <agro...@onlinehome.de> wrote: > On May 16, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Michael Ash wrote: > >> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Andreas Grosam <agro...@onlinehome.de> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I really can‘t believe this. It would be a great faux-pas! Do I really >>>>> miss >>>>> something? Is this limitation anywhere documented? >>>> >>>> You say "limitation," the rest of the world says "design principle." >>> >>> A design "principle"? Call it how you like but a database application >>> does >>> not have this principle. The opposite is true - it is an anti principle, >>> or >>> in other words, any framework that supports any database application >>> shall >>> not be single user, single transaction context, non-transactional. >>> >>> This design "principle" severely limits the number of useful >>> applications. >> >> It also severely limits the design complexity and implementation work. >> >> I really don't understand what the problem is here. > > The problem here is, that although Core Data is really great to implement > your application model it appears that you cannot use Core Data for storing > your data model in multi user databases. As a consequence, Core Data is > basically inapplicable for multi user database applications.
I don't understand why that's a problem. That's how it works. That's how it's *designed*. It's like complaining that your car doesn't fly. >> CoreData never >> claimed to do what you want it to do. It is VERY CLEAR about what it's >> for and how it works. > > No, at the first glance it is/was not very clear to me (and many others, > too) that Core Data is not and will never be for multi user applications. > What Core Data else is, and how it works is largely unrelated to this > limitation, anyway. Perhaps you should have taken more than a first glance. For example, here: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdBasics.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001650 "Core Data is not a relational database or a relational database management system (RDBMS)." >> Whining about how it doesn't support massive >> multi-user applications makes absolutely no sense. > > Now, I'm starting to wonder whether you had ever designed a database > application (or framework). Then you should have noticed that this is a > fundamental requirement. Maybe I'm biased, but I cannot think of any modern > third party framework related to the database domain that does not support > multi user. Why would you think I had ever designed a database application or framework? All I know is, CoreData is *not* a database framework, so your whining about how it fails some fundamental requirement for database frameworks makes no sense. > Since it is very likely that an object graph management framework like Core > Data is a part of a framework for database applications I think this is a > valid question. Sure, it's a valid question. And you received a valid answer (no). >> You might as well >> complain that Cocoa has no support for digital audio processing, or >> that your Mac makes a poor platform for embedded computing. > > The opposite is true: I know Mac OS (or better iPhone OS) is a great > example for an embedded application, and my Mac makes a great development > platform for this kind of devices. ;) I didn't say Mac OS, I said your Mac, as in the computer. > Anyway, I think the OPs requirement is multi user, and in this case Core > Data is not applicable. Which is too bad since it is great otherwise. You're absolutely correct about this. I don't disagree at all. My only objection is to your attitude that CoreData's intended design limitation constitutes some kind of insurmountable failing for any usage whatsoever. Mike _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
