Mailing-List: contact user-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <9C9D1464-837E-41D8-92D5-AA748698DC94@roxanemy.com>
From: Robert Zeigler <robert.zeigler@roxanemy.com>
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4ACA29D0.3090205@mengozzi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: question about 3.0
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:26:21 -0500
References: <4ACA21D2.4060602@mengozzi.com>
 <BF59D1FA-AD60-4FCA-9176-E6E5955A13A6@roxanemy.com>
 <4ACA29D0.3090205@mengozzi.com>

Shouldn't be any missing methods.  There are a few deprecated methods,  
mostly centering around generifying from DataContext, the class, to  
ObjectContext, the interface.

I upgraded a medium-sized project from 2.0.4 to 3.0 in about 30 minutes.

Robert

On Oct 5, 2009, at 10/512:16 PM , Emanuele Maiarelli wrote:

> Robert Zeigler ha scritto:
> it will give to code a bad impact, i mean a application written with  
> 2.0.4 will have to face many methods deprecation or missing?
>> I would give 3.0 a try.
>> I'm using it in several production systems with no issues.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2009, at 10/511:41 AM , Emanuele Maiarelli wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using cayenne 2.0.4 with ROP and a swing application, and  
>>> everything working fine.
>>>
>>> I built a framework ontop of cayenne libs for managing prefetching  
>>> and concurrent updates.
>>>
>>> I read that incoming cayene 3.0 will enanche ROP performances.
>>>
>>> Do you think i can try cayenne 3.0 or should be better stay with  
>>> 2.0 until 3.0 goes in prodcution?
>>>
>>> Emanuele
>>
>