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
