I just started playing around with GWT and Google App Engine yesterday. It seems to me that you could get Cayenne working with it, especially with Cayenne server-side and ROP. But I think you could go a step further and probably get Cayenne working directly with the Google AppStore via a custom db adaptor.
Like you said, there's some limitations, but I don't know if Cayenne's use of reflection is that involved. Just a matter of someone taking a look at it. I know that someone had JSF 1.1 working on it yesterday. On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Andrey Razumovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > I've never used JPA as it is, so I don't have any objections for excluding > it. But I really feel that Cayenne should rise another strict "plan for > 3.0". It's much simplier to tell users that Cayenne's going to grow and > improve when you have one. > About Cayenne and Web 2.0.. This is a theme I would like to discuss. > Currently I'm using Cayenne and GWT (not Cayenne *with* GWT) and JSON for > transporting data between client and server. I, however, dream of something > ROP-like in GWT. There are two major disparities - the lack of synchronious > requests and the lack of Reflection, which make it a far target. I'm > planning to do some research in this someday. > > 2009/4/9 Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> > >> While generally I have no objections to doing it one step at a time, let's >> look at the practical side of it. At the minimum we'll need to exclude >> cayenne-jpa-unpublished from cayenne-server aggregated artifact. This is >> easy and non-invasive. But... we'll also need to remove the JPA docs from >> the release bundle, and make a clear statement on the site about the JPA >> status ("not a part of Cayenne"). As a result it doesn't look like any >> marketing benefit will be preserved, so is it worth the trouble of going >> half way with it? >> >> Andrus >> >> >> >> On Apr 9, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: >> >> >>> On 09/04/2009, at 4:03 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: >>> >>> What needs to be moved out is "cayenne-jpa-unpublished" (and the >>>> corresponding itest modules), NOT the lifecycle events or EJBQL stuff in >>>> "cayenne-jdk1.5-unpublished" - these we will keep. As I mentioned before we >>>> are legally prohibited by the JSR license agreement from releasing >>>> non-compliant provider as a final release. So we can't make 3.0-final that >>>> includes classes from "cayenne-jpa-unpublished". This was the driving >>>> factor >>>> behind this discussion. Having to support API compliance of the backend is >>>> also a consideration, albeit minor for now. >>>> >>> >>> >>> That makes sense. Could the simple solution for the legal issue be just a >>> change to the maven scripts so that JPA doesn't end up in the final >>> packaging. Then soul searching can be postponed for a while to let the dust >>> settle. >>> >>> Ari Maniatis >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------> >>> ish >>> http://www.ish.com.au >>> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia >>> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001 >>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
