-- prodigitalson <ant.cunning...@gmail.com> wrote (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 12:04 PM -0700): > I dont know if its even possible but id really like to see some general > abstraction for ORM integration that these would be based on... Just to make > it easier to integrate Propel for instance. > > Granted this would have to be pretty abstract given vendor differences - or > even differences in major versions of the same software. Im just thinking > that if i want to integrate ORM XYZ, i should general > interfaces/abstractions for Model Builders, Form Builders, Loggers and what > not to program to make the process just a little less daunting.
While some of this may be abstractable, the fact is that even between Doctrine and Doctrine 2 the structure of the project changed fairly significantly. We may be able to leverage some of the work/ideas from Symfony (which supports both), but even there, I seem to recall that the configuration is quite different between the projects. Additionally, for things such as model/form builders, these would be handled by the ORM layer; at most, we might have a Zend_Tool provider that proxies to the Doctrine CLI tooling (which can be invoked via class methods). Loggers, etc., are typically project specific -- but one of the points where we would like more direct integration. If you or others want to see additional ORM solutions, write up proposals soon, so we can start determining if there are enough commonalities to warrant an abstraction layer within ZF. > Sorry to see Zend_Entity go, but I readily welcome Doctrine :-) > > > weierophinney wrote: > > > > -- Antonio José García Lagar <a...@garcialagar.es> wrote > > (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 07:24 PM +0100): > >> I'm so sorry for this decision but otherwise I know this was a hard work > >> that > >> you have done mostly alone. > >> > >> Although the project is not finished, I congratulate you: your work has > >> been > >> excellent. > >> > >> Do you plan to integrate Doctrine 1.x with ZF? I think that I'm not the > >> only > >> one tied to PHP 5.2. I hope to help with this. > > > > Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very > > reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine, > > Zend_Doctrine2). There are some commonalities between them that we can > > leverage immediately (application resources, in particular), and others > > that will require more collaboration between the two projects (e.g., > > shared cache objects and loggers, etc.). > > > > -- > > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > > Project Lead | matt...@zend.com > > Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp26117819p26118942.html > Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matt...@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/
