Re: M1 documentation effort heads up

From: Lachlan Deck (lachlan.dec..mail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 17 2007 - 10:30:40 EDT

  • Next message: Kevin Menard: "RE: [VOTE] Cayenne Release 3.0M1"

    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