Perhaps it is just my preference (or conditioning) that when an
application creates N (where N > 1) data files, it stores/organizes it
in a directory.
/dev/mrg
On Dec 27, 2007 6:14 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> But you can use a dedicated folder for Cayenne mapping now. I guess my
> disagreement is that we should make folder-based setup a default (even
> if an optional default).
>
> Thanks,
> Andrus
>
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>
> > I don't mind having the mapping (DataMap) in a single file, although
> > perhaps it might make merging harder if two people are editing the
> > same model simultaneously. And I wasn't really suggesting splitting
> > it out into a file-per-entity, like in EOModeler. I was talking about
> > grouping all current Cayenne XML (Domains, Maps, Nodes) files in a
> > single directory wrapper. This would make it easier to make quick
> > copies of a model before you changed something if you wanted (for
> > whatever reason). Of course, if an SCM system is in place, you have
> > to deal with the directory quirks of the system if you actually want
> > to rename or move the file, but that argument could be made about
> > refactoring any bit of the system. It would also be easier to send a
> > copy of the model to someone who isn't set up with the SCM system
> > (like DBAs, etc). They could use the modeler to view the model or,
> > and this is what I'm looking at currently, be able to edit the
> > database with another tool (I've started designing a DBEdit clone that
> > would work with Cayenne Models -- DBEdit is currently dead on Leopard
> > and is an invaluable tool for database-related software development
> > and production support). The branding issue is secondary, although it
> > would be nice to double-click on a model and have it open in CM.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > /dev/mrg
> >
> > PS. Not all models are simple, either -- one of mine had 8 XML files,
> > but would've had more if I weren't creating DataMaps at runtime ...
> > made the root a bit messier.
> >
> > On Dec 19, 2007 11:40 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
> > wrote:
> >> I just remembered some background BTW. The conclusion I came to in
> >> the
> >> message below is the same one we made in 2001 when we approached the
> >> initial Cayenne design. The group of people involved all did
> >> WebObjects development on Windows, and used CVS (which is rather
> >> directory-unfriendly). So the feeling was that having mapping in a
> >> single file is a usability feature compared to EOF. Since we are not
> >> going to split map.xml any further, look at it this way: it makes
> >> sense to have an .emodeld folder for EOF as it had one mapping file
> >> per entity... it does not for Cayenne.
> >>
> >> Andrus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:27 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not saying yes or no just yet, but let me comment on the specific
> >>> items.
> >>>
> >>>> * Have Cayenne Modeler save the XML files (cayenne.xml, etc) into a
> >>>> Cayenne wrapper directory of your naming, such as MyModel.cayenne
> >>>> (it
> >>>> would append the .cayenne, which is the wrapper signature). You
> >>>> could
> >>>> also have MyOtherModel.cayenne in the same directory.
> >>>
> >>> Currently you can have multiple cayenne.xml files either in
> >>> different packages or in the root of different jars (of course this
> >>> will only becomes really useful once we implement CAY-943). Having
> >>> multiple cayenne.xml in a single jar doesn't buy you much really...
> >>>
> >>>> * Have Cayenne resolve all *.cayenne wrappers at the root of the
> >>>> CLASSPATH upon startup.
> >>>
> >>> How are you planning to do that? The only environment independent
> >>> way that I know of in Java is "ClassLoader.getResources(String)"
> >>> which requires an exact name, not a pattern. This would work for
> >>> multiple cayenne.xml in the root of different jars, but won't work
> >>> for "*.cayenne" (there are some workarounds that may potentially
> >>> limit portability).
> >>>
> >>>> * The *.cayenne wrapper directories could be "branded" with a
> >>>> Cayenne
> >>>> logo (at least on OS X, not 100% sure about other OS's).
> >>>
> >>> This would be an OSX only feature.
> >>>
> >>>> * The *.cayenne wrapper can be double-clicked to launch Cayenne
> >>>> Modeler (again, on OS X, hopefully on other OS's too).
> >>>
> >>> This one too.
> >>>
> >>>> * It is easier to copy a model around in a GUI (drag and drop one
> >>>> "file") instead of select multiple files.
> >>>
> >>> True, although usually you'd have .svn in your folder, so you do not
> >>> want to copy that.
> >>>
> >>>> I can't think of any real negatives to this, either,
> >>>> but feedback is greatly appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> The biggest negative to me is that we introduce extra complexity
> >>> without a clear advantage. I am worried of Cayenne turning into Perl
> >>> with multiple redundant ways to solve any given problem (note that
> >>> usually I am the one guilty of this .... for instance now we have 3
> >>> types of persistent objects).
> >>>
> >>> Anyways, we have to weigh potential benefits against this concern.
> >>> And the only benefit I am seeing so far is branding on OS X which is
> >>> probably the least of our concerns.
> >>>
> >>> Andrus
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Dec 27 2007 - 09:48:38 EST