On 06/07/2007, at 5:53 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:44 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
>> And would Cayenne ROP be clearer as "Cayenne Client"? Or do you
>> think that ROP is a well known term?
>
> The ROP name was a product of a discussion some time ago:
>
> http://objectstyle.org/cayenne/lists/cayenne-devel/
> 2005/11/0024.html
>
> I'd like to have a shorter definition than "Remote Object
> Persistence", but I still feel like "Client" is not reflecting the
> meaning of this technology.
(Catching up on some emails...) ... isn't the aim to reduce the
divisions between 2/3-tier persistence with cayenne. e.g., in future
DataContext/CayenneContext will merge; likewise for PersistentObject/
CayenneDataObject etc
i.e., my question is why does there need to be a separate section for
this? Perhaps it's more beneficial for these concepts to be
documented alongside any relative 2-tier docs seeing as they're
mostly an extension of the same?
with regards,
--Lachlan Deck
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jul 17 2007 - 10:31:17 EDT