Tim, Mapper is mixing inestricably persistence and visualization+validation semantics, and effectively this is something that slow down my implementation effort. I look forward for your blog post on backend implementation.
Regards Giuseppe On 17 Ago, 17:58, Timothy Perrett <[email protected]> wrote: > Giuseppe, > > Im sure you already know this, but be carfull when comparing mapper to > record... There implementations (whilst similar) are semantically > different... Certainly that's been my experience whilst implementing a > custom backend for Record (blog post coming soon) > > Cheers, Tim > > On 17/08/2009 15:44, "Giuseppe Fogliazza" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I confirm that there are some efforts in progress. Particularly I am > > writing a jsr 170 (jackrabbit) backend for Record. It is taking longer > > than expected because I am extending Record with reference field and > > multivalued field that are of paramount relevance in domain modeling. > > I studied recent extension to Mapper (TableEditor, OneToMany, > > ManyToMany) as a starting point. > > > Regards > > Giuseppe > > > On 16 Ago, 12:00, Timothy Perrett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Short answer: "no". > > >> Long answer: There are a couple of efforts in progress, but this are > >> early, early stages (not even runnable code). > > >> Cheers, Tim > > >> On Aug 16, 7:08 am, philip <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> Has anyone made a CMS for Liftweb? or I should say, in liftweb. > > >>> Thanks, Philip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
