> No we don't. Apart from building and setup hassles,
> NSPropertyListSerialization is not stable, meaning that you can't
> be sure of the order of your entries and I'm very glad that version
> control now no longer throws a fit when you do light changes in
> your model.
This is correct -- we have a slightly fancier API that lets us pass
in data structure factories to deserialization so we can create
sorted sets and maps instead of unordered. And yeah, you could post-
process NSPropertyListSerialization results to do this, but at a high
annoyance factor.
> And as the cayenne serialization should work the same as WOs
> (Andrus, correct me if I'm wrong), this problem should also be
> fixable.
Actually it should be compatible with Apple plist files in general,
not just specifically WO ... Definitely fixable. And screw plist
format for not specifying data types explicitly anyway. This
guessing of type thing is for the birds.
> I agree that if *I* had written EM, I'd probably have used WO
> classes, but that is just because I am lazy.
I honestly don't know (well, laziness aside :) ) ... We have a lot of
capability for fixing problems with our own version. Honestly, other
than SQL generation (which we hook into WO to do, but at large
performance cost with dynamic classloader generation), most of
EOModeler is just wrapping a data structure. The EOF EOModel
frameworks also have a very coarse event notification system that
would have made building a live-updating UI very frustrating -- you
would basically end up having to write wrappers for all the model
objects, at which point, what else is there really other than file-
loading/saving, which is pretty small.
Anyway, we have what we have at the moment. I don't know what will
come of EOQualifiers for custom qualifier support -- it may turn out
that it makes sense to bundle, but I still am waiting for my official
response from the WO/Apple people saying it's OK (I know you got
approval, Pierre, but I'd like to hear them give us the official OK
for this project as well -- no offense, just call me paranoid), and I
would like to hear from Ulrich and the other committers as to whether
or not they are comfortable even shipping binary-only jars as part of
WOLips.
I really don't want this to turn into a big issue that I get
defensive about ... I worked on this project for fun, and i would
prefer it to stay fun and not feel like a political debate. The
decisions that were made when I started out may turn out to have been
based on assumptions that were not valid (i.e. licensing
restrictions), and if so, and if the people who care generally agree,
we'll reevaluate and do what makes sense.
ms
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Aug 02 2006 - 15:12:22 EDT