cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Zeigler <robert.zeig...@roxanemy.com>
Subject Re: Information for GSOC 2014
Date Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:49:58 GMT
I third not going down the annotation route. Frankly, I don’t find the relationship annotations
intuitive/easy-to-read at all. :) There are significant differences in the “default” cayenne
behavior and default JPA behavior (one simple example: Cayenne assumes you want reverse relationships
mapped. Reverse relationships in JPA/Hibernate are, IMO , a PITA. At least they were the last
time I used them). Having used both Hibernate and Cayenne significantly, each has their merits…
but it’s nice to have a different philosophy in the ORM space. It helps spur innovation
and avoid “group think” about the “best” way to do ORM. Also, annotation-driven “POJOs”
are a major pain to debug because they completely invert the object inheritance, and it’s
really messed up. :)

Robert

On Mar 14, 2014, at 3/142:22 AM , Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org> wrote:

> Hi Eshan,
> 
> Good to see you back :)
> 
> I second Ari about annotations. I can think of a few ways to simplify Cayenne mapping,
but annotations is not one of them. We are actually using annotations, just not for ORM. Not
basing our product on annotations gives us:
> 
> * Generic persistent object.
> * No fake POJO - Cayenne objects are “real”.
> * Great startup performance.
> 
> Re: JPA. We made an effort to implement a Cayenne-based JPA provider in the past [1],
and actually got pretty far with it. Looking back though, it was a waste of time and clearly
showed that if we want to preserve our philosophy (mainly ObjectContext approach), we should
keep going our own way, and don’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole. Actually once
we abandoned the JPA work, lots of innovations have blossomed in Cayenne land (DI, property
expressions to name a few).
> 
> So I personally have no interest in either of these ideas. But of course we have many
more other projects :)
> 
> 
> Now a practical question - anyone in the community is ready to mentor a GSOC project?
Unfortunately I am out - just don’t have bandwidth. I am not even sure if we’ve already
missed the boat with our application this year? Any takers?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrus
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAYJPA/Index
> 
> 
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Eshan Sudharaka <esudharaka@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Aristedes ,
>> 
>> Actually what I though is if we can support JPA standards (purely) like
>> hibernate it is very easier to switch from
>> ORM to other. In addition we can have cayenne specific entity relates
>> functions(Vendor specific) . I am not sure how far this
>> idea is practical for end users.
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <ari@maniatis.org>wrote:
>> 
>>> Cayenne's concept of a data model is pretty much at the core of the whole
>>> library. To replace that, and the fact that entities are all subclasses of
>>> Cayenne entity classes, doesn't seem to be particularly helpful.
>>> 
>>> It is fairly trivial to change the velocity templates to add some
>>> annotations to the generated classes, if that helps with your readability.
>>> 
>>> Having said that, we are always open to ideas and contributions. But I
>>> think your proposal for this idea needs to be more defined and narrow in
>>> scope. Perhaps a conversion between JPA annotations and cayenne modeler XML?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ari
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 14/03/2014 3:32pm, Eshan Sudharaka wrote:
>>>> Hi Aristedes ,
>>>> 
>>>> I have used cayenne for object relational mapping for some projects. And
>>> I rather prefer to have annotation
>>>> support like we have in Hibernate and its really readable when we have
>>> annotations for object relationships.
>>>> 
>>>> Could you please share your thoughts on this. Like how feasible this is
>>> and the scope is with in or beyond the gsoc
>>>> time line.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <ari@maniatis.org<mailto:
>>> ari@maniatis.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Hi Eshan,
>>>> 
>>>>  Thanks for your interest in the Apache Cayenne project. While we
>>> have no formal GSOC 2014 projects planned, perhaps you'd like to propose
>>> the areas in which you are interested in Cayenne. What is your experience
>>> with Cayenne and what areas would you like to work on?
>>>> 
>>>>  Ari Maniatis
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  On 14/03/2014 11:30am, Eshan Sudharaka wrote:
>>>>> Dear Andrus,Ksenia and the members
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thia is regarding for getting some information regarding GSOC 2014
>>> program.
>>>>> Since I am following masters I am eligible for working on a sumer
>>> of code
>>>>> project. So I am planing to use my summer time for a GSOC project.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be really helpful for me to get some details for the GSOC
>>> plans in
>>>>> this year. (Probably a product development or a feature)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looking forward work with Cayenne team in this sumer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  --
>>>>  -------------------------->
>>>>  Aristedes Maniatis
>>>>  GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> /*~Thanks & Regards~*/
>>>> /**/*/
>>>> /*
>>>> Eshan Sudharaka
>>>> http://esudharaka.blogspot.com/
>>> 
>>> --
>>> -------------------------->
>>> Aristedes Maniatis
>>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> *~Thanks & Regards~*
>> 
>> Eshan Sudharaka
>> http://esudharaka.blogspot.com/
> 


Mime
View raw message