I'm quite OK with incremental changes. I was just pointing out that
when you look at that one class (which is pretty core) it is a bit of
a head-scratcher. No worries, though. And no one expects you to be
Howard. One of Cayenne's strengths is the stability it has had.
Thanks,
mrg
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>
>> It just seems like it is caught in 3 different lands: pre-generics,
>> generics, and POJO.
>
> That's one of my biggest headaches. You'd be experimenting with new things,
> going through trial and error cycles, learning, gathering feedback, and then
> somewhere along that way your unfinished designs become public API and you
> can't change it anymore. This is why JPA was so attractive at first - it has
> a very thin layer of public API, and 85% of the framework is private. And
> this is why I brought up dependency injection (and implicitly, coding to
> interfaces) as a prospective future direction.
>
> Hmmm... sometimes I feel like attacking that the Tapestry (or Log4J/SLF4J)
> way - rewriting things from scratch to have a fresh and fully consistent
> framework. But then I realize that I won't be able to spend the next 2-3
> years of my life to create something that is already available and works,
> and lose the entire community in the process.
>
> Alas, we are stuck in the imperfect world, and will have to make incremental
> changes :-/
>
> Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Oct 09 2009 - 09:25:33 EDT