Yeah, I wasn't making an excuse, just sharing my perception of
reality :-)
Andrus
On Oct 9, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
> 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 - 10:30:15 EDT