Last I heard Doctrine 2 was set to be released in Q1 2011. +1 for it being very stable already. We've been using it in production since February.
@Nick: What limitations are you talking about? Doctrine 2 is just meant to do persistence, and do it well. This means that it won't do some of the neat behaviors that other ORMs can do, but it's meant more as a base that you can build on top of. Why reimpliment the persistence part when you can just build on top of what Doctrine already does? Michael Ridgway On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Nick Daugherty <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm seeing a lot of talk about Doctrine 2 and ZF lately. Is the general > consensus that Doctrine is going to be used for object persistence, rather > than a new Zend component? > > Yes Doctrine is great, but it has some limitations, some of which are > non-trivial in complex applications and the maintainers have shown no > interest in working on these issues. > > I would much prefer a ZF component that has many of Doctrine's features, > but > uses ZF's db adapters and other components (caches, etc). I think not > having > ORM in ZF is a major hole and keeping if from being THE KILLER framework > for > the web. My vote is for a new ZF ORM that tightly couples with the rest of > the framework. > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:28 AM, David Muir > <[email protected] <davidkmuir%[email protected]>< > davidkmuir%[email protected] <davidkmuir%[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > monk.e.boy wrote: > > > > > > > > > weierophinney wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> (APC http://php.net/manual/en/book.apc.php will help your speed > > issues) > > >> > > >> APC is one solution -- and that applies to ZF1 as well. However, the > > >> better solution is to profile the code and re-architect pain points to > > >> make them more performant. The autoloading/plugin loading milestone > was > > >> highly focussed on this, and the outcome has been very rewarding -- > > >> 7-20x speed increases! > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Agreed! The work you guys have done is amazing. > > > > > > But Doctrine2 is almost insisting [1] that you use > > > APC/Memcache/XcacheCache so it looks like a lot of us will be going > down > > > that route. Is this something you are going to recomend with ZF2? Is it > > > something you think about when writing/testing v2.0? > > > > > > [1] ref: > > > > > > http://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/orm/2.0/docs/reference/configuration/en > > > > > > monk.e.boy > > > > > > > > > The cache they're talking about is metadata caching. ZF1 already > recommends > > this for Zend_Db_Table's metadata[1]. > > > > What Matthew was referring to was opcode caching [2], not data caching, > > although some opcode caches offer general purpose caching functionality, > > ie. > > APC and Xcache > > > > [1] ref: > > > > > http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.db.table.html#zend.db.table.metadata.caching > > [2] ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PHP_accelerators > > > > Cheers, > > David > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://zend-framework-community.634137.n4.nabble.com/ZF-2-0-when-and-what-tp3031964p3041719.html > > Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
