-- keith Pope <mute.p...@googlemail.com> wrote (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:19 PM +0000): > 29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <matt...@zend.com>: > > -- Antonio José García Lagar <a...@garcialagar.es> wrote > > (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100): > >> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney <matt...@zend.com> > >> > >> > >> 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.). > > I must say its a shame that ZE is going, I thought it was too bigger a > project for one person, not fair asking for that much commitment from > anyone. > > Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.....
Take a look at Doctrine 2 -- Zend_Entity and Doctrine 2 shared a very similar design, and the models are completely de-coupled. > Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide > now to not use the Data Mapper pattern and use doctrine instead? Yes, once we have integration in place. ;) -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matt...@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/
