Mike, I completely agree with you. This is what I meant about
usability issues and EOModels being second-class citizens. You'd be
able to import a Cayenne model (you can do this already with only a
little bit of information loss), but then you'd have to maintain it
from a "Cayenne" mindset. The "save as" action would then translate
the Cayenne stuff back into EOModel stuff (reversing the import
conversions). So you'd be "programming" your model as if it were a
Cayenne model, but storing it on disk as an EOModel. I don't think
it'd really affect the Cayenne modeler code much -- the code for doing
the import/export conversions would be localized to those actions.
However, the end user would have to be both Cayenne- and an
EOF-model-aware.
I don't think anyone is going to take this on because of the limited
utility of it. But I think once every part of a EOF model has been
represented in the Cayenne model, someone will take the 30 minutes
required to output 95% of the data in EOF model format. It'll
probably be someone who's experienced at using Cayenne that has to
maintain an old EOF model. Like me :-)
Here's hoping that by that point Entity Modeler is so advanced that
there's no need for it :-)
On 3/12/07, Mike Schrag <mschra..dimension.com> wrote:
> I think the things that will get you are concepts that are KIND OF
> close, but not EXACTLY the same. EOF obviously has very specific
> (and some very strange) semantics for things that you would have to
> match in the Cayenne model. I suspect this would make the Cayenne
> code progressively crappier as you add all these weird little special
> cases. Two that come to mind right now are EOQualifiers and
> Cayenne's query system -- close but not an exact match (some of the
> keywords aren't the same) and things like the stored procedure stuff
> in EOM format for fetching/inserting/etc (combined the weird ordering
> semantics of the stored proc attributes). It's deceptively close,
> but Cayenne has a nice, fresh view of things -- it would be like
> tracking mud through a clean kitchen :) But hey, if someone wants to
> take it on, more power ...
>
> More on topic, though, I'm all for bringing WOGen up to speed. It's
> been a checklist item on my perpetually growing checklist, but "real
> work" has gotten in the way the past couple months.
>
> ms
>
> On Mar 12, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>
> > On 3/12/07, Mike Kienenberger <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
> >> The only missing functionality is already on the TODO list
> >> for the standard Cayenne modeler (prototypes, user properties, uml
> >> diagramming, certain kinds of inheritance).
> >
> > And derived types. Ok, the list keeps getting longer :-) Actually,
> > if it's just a matter of equivalency, prototypes and uml stuff isn't
> > required.
> >
> > As I said before, I'm willing to be a resource for porting Cayenne's
> > cgen stuff as an EOGenerator replacement. I might even have my
> > scripts still around somewhere that I used to convert my EOGenerator
> > templates into velocity templates. I suspect I wrote them as
> > MiscMerge templates. :-)
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Mar 12 2007 - 15:48:42 EDT