On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Ashley Aitken wrote:
>> Having used to actively develop Cayenne applications, but more
>> recently having to develop using JPA, which uses an AR approach, I can
>> say that it doesn't actually work or help to mix AR and Unit-of-work
>> Cayenne DataContext concepts.
On 30/12/2012, at 1:50 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ashley Aitken wrote:
>> Finally, I am also not sure how something like ActiveRecord approach would
>> actually work, or be compatible with, Cayenne. To my mind it defeats the
>> whole purpose of having a c
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ashley Aitken wrote:
> Finally, I am also not sure how something like ActiveRecord approach would
> actually work, or be compatible with, Cayenne. To my mind it defeats
> the whole purpose of having a container managing the persistence of a
> collection of objec
Hello All,
I hope you don't mind me jumping into this conversation but I find it very
interesting (particularly the discussion of rich vs. anemic domain models but
also of the ActiveRecord approach, especially today as alternative approaches
to persistence, under the banner of NOSQL, are gain
emeka okafor wrote:
> Sorry about that.
>
>
>
> From: Andrus Adamchik
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
>
> While we all have our own approach
Sorry about that.
From: Andrus Adamchik
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
While we all have our own approaches to programming, let's filter the language
and k
While we all have our own approaches to programming, let's filter the language
and keep a respectful technical conversation. Some things said in this thread
are simply not appropriate, besides being beyond the point. We are not going to
tolerate this.
We have a traditionally friendly community
>
> > From: Juan José Gil
> > To: user@cayenne.apache.org; emeka okafor
> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance, I really don't understan
link
> http://www.wocommunity.org
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> From: Juan José Gil
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org; emeka okafor
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
>
> Pardon
support to Cayenne
Pardon my ignorance, I really don't understand what do you mean with
>>Beside that I rather do simple stuffs like the webobjects guys do. You do
not hear them complain about such
>>things like services, and dependency injection and what not
I don't know a
Also FWIW, we are trying to build the same fluent APIs in Cayenne itself, so to
me Ilya's proposal is simply reassigning the existing and planned query APIs to
objects themselves - a very simple "transposition".
I.e. this proposal is just a different style for what we already have or will
have
I think the idea is to combine the new API with existing Cayenne facilities for
providing thread-bound ObjectContext based on some custom strategy (e.g.
CayenneFilter [1]) and then using the API within a single thread context. And
committing via a single static class (instead of committing indiv
> cayenne you have an anemic domain model, which is not true.
> /end of the rant
>
>
>
> From: Andrus Adamchik
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
>
On 26/12/12 6:48pm, Дробеня Илья wrote:
This is the best OOP design. And for me need to separate context only when
we need anvanced features that do not possible in current design.
Let's take:
a.delete()
b.delete()
a.commitChanges()
Are there two separate contexts there so I committed only th
; 2012/12/27 emeka okafor
> >
> >> It depends on what you call service. Is a service a message call that is
> >> remote in the sense that it is outside of the same JVM or is a service
> any
> >> random function that do not belong to the domain object? If I am
>
Pardon my ignorance, I really don't understand what do you mean with
>>Beside that I rather do simple stuffs like the webobjects guys do. You do
not hear them complain about such
>>things like services, and dependency injection and what not
I don't know anything about WO :(
I would really apprec
ects become naked(cayenne is not to blame for that).
>> Personally I would rather program in groovy with metaprogramming than do
>> all that stuff if I had to. Beside that I rather do simple stuffs like the
>> webobjects guys do. You do not hear them complain about such things lik
>
> From: Juan José Gil
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org; emeka okafor
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
>
> @emeka, in that regar of having rich models, how are you resolving the
>
ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
@emeka, in that regar of having rich models, how are you resolving the
injection of services in your models? Or are you accessing your
dependencies using static factories?
@Дробеня Илья, in some pet projects I was using some very "powered"
templates, wich con
what does it have to do with
> active records, actually nothing. It is just that someone said that with
> cayenne you have an anemic domain model, which is not true.
> /end of the rant
>
>
>
> From: Andrus Adamchik
> To: user@cayenne.apache
ayenne you have an anemic domain model, which is not true.
/end of the rant
From: Andrus Adamchik
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
In ROP case the root cause is 2 separat
In ROP case the root cause is 2 separate disjoint models (doesn't matter rich
or anemic). A single anemic model would've allowed to define a common set of
"services".
So while I am still on this rant, I think the "rich/anemic model" discussion at
the end may come down to modularity requirements
On 26/12/12 11:40am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Ilya's point that we discussed a bit offline was that AR-like design is more
object-oriented, with object providing all operations on themselves. The context will be
taken from the current thread (something we already provide). One piece of theory beh
Yeah, I was also going to suggest that instead of adding this to the core and
then throwing out (or not), we do it another way - create it as a separate
project (either in Cayenne SVN sandbox, or maybe even on GitHub) and see what
comes out.
Ilya's point that we discussed a bit offline was that
On 23/12/12 3:52pm, Дробеня Илья wrote:
From my estimates - we spent on development ~ 1 week, if
during year this feature do not will be used by anybody - we may remove it.
What do you think?
Sure, as long as you keep this as a wrapper outside of Cayenne itself. Although
measuring usage in an
Ari, we may propose to users select schema that he want - maybe somebody
want tro use ActiveRecord. But classic Cayenne architecture will be used
anyway. But if user want - he may use ActiveRecord. From my perspective -
Cayenne - best framework for add this feature, and for RoR fans it may be
very
On 20/12/12 4:18am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Now in Ruby (which I barely know) I suppose ActiveRecord is such a great RAD
technology, because when you control the DB, you can sort of avoid (or
minimize) the*mapping* step.
To an extent. ActiveRecord (and most of Rails) is configuration by conve
I was trying to wrap my head around the idea for a couple of days, so here is
my thoughts so far...
BTW here are a few similar proposals by David Marko:
this one: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-877
and especially this one: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-988
Here all the n
2012/12/19 Michael Gentry
> One of the dangers of having delete/save/update
Update method do not needed, delete method is useful - because it remove
entity from context.
And instead of save method - we may create methods - seems like
commitContext, rollbackContext.
Also we may create it in "Rol
One of the dangers of having delete/save/update in a DAO is that most
people familiar with DAOs may not realize that more than the specified
object will be deleted/saved/updated since Cayenne works on the
context-level and potentially everything in the context will get committed.
I don't mind fetc
ot;user@cayenne.apache.org"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
>
> I would welcome the addition of some DAO (data access object) methods in
> the entity templates that make it even easier to query the DB. For
plates) since
at least 2008 (if not before).
>
>
> From: John Huss
> To: "user@cayenne.apache.org"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
>
> I would welcome the addition of
Coming from EOF? I think those static helper classes are missing but it is not
that bad either.
From: John Huss
To: "user@cayenne.apache.org"
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
I would w
ing done EOF at some point in my life.
Let the discussion start
From: Дробеня Илья
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:09 AM
Subject: Add ActiveRecord support to Cayenne
Hi!
Now Cayenne usage in projects looks like data mapper (Fowle
I would welcome the addition of some DAO (data access object) methods in
the entity templates that make it even easier to query the DB. For example
I have these defined in my entity template:
public static List fetchAll(ObjectContext ec);
public static List fetchAll(ObjectContext ec, List sortOr
Hi!
Now Cayenne usage in projects looks like data mapper (Fowler), but all
entities has dependecy on Cayenne (interface Persistent). For data mapper
it is disadvantage.
But it is acceptable for ActiveRecord. This is my first reason to propose
this solution. Second reason - we may simple add all po
36 matches
Mail list logo
