On 26 Dec 2011, at 23:59, objectwerks inc wrote: > On Dec 26, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM, objectwerks inc >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: >>>> Any sort of persistent storage support went bye-bye >>> >>> CoreData >> >> Really? I'm a 10.5.8 person. I took a look at CoreData when it first >> came out (10.6), and got some feedback from others: >> 1. An EOF wannabe missing major features > > lesser goals It may have lesser goals, but it really shouldn't. >> 2. No database support > > sqllite Strictly speaking, you could say that Core Data supports SQLite, XML and a proprietary binary format. However, as the SQLite support requires a very rigid format, and there's no way to create adaptors for different databases, I would agree that Core Data doesn't have any reasonable database support. There's no way that I can point Core Data at a pre-existing database and have it work - unlike EOF. >> 3. Serious limitations. > > like what? Single user. No doubt there are many other limitations, as a persistence layer and anything else, but that is a killer as far as I am concerned. My preference for most applications is to use plists (old style by preference, mainly for readability reasons), with NSPredicate and other modern conveniences. There are some circumstances that would make me prefer Core Data (much better handling of fundamentals like uniquing, etc), but plists are good enough for common uses. >> Are these issues now solved? I'm not expecting #1 to be fully solved, >> but can it talk to an SQLite database as a minimum? > > SQLite *is* the data store for CoreData It's a data store, but it can't talk to SQLite databases in general. Paul _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
