Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration
Pádraic, It's quite easy to call someone a 'troll'. I admit the term 'failure' is probably not fair. However, that's how your competitors, from the open source world, or not, (it doesn't matter), could look at it. I sincerely did not mean to hurt or blame Benjamin who where working on his own. It's a good thing he had the maturity to 'roll-back'. It's just a pity strategically, that support for Doctrine was announced after this 'failure'. It would have been a smarter move to propose a formal Doctrine integration first, then to launch R&D on Zend_Entity. Pádraic Brady wrote: > > I also have never heard of Xyster - so it would have been a surprise to > see it adopted. > I'm the one supposed to be misinformed. -Arié Pádraic Brady wrote: > >>SensioLabs is not the devil, obviously, it's simply your main > competitor. >>It's a pity that you decided to reinvent the wheel, met a 'little blockade', >>resigned and decided to go for Doctrine on this > failure. You could have >>started by providing integration to the > popular Doctrine, then have a look >>to the Xyster Orm. So, as i said, > it's a pity, that you failed this way. If >>i were SensioLabs, >>http://www.doctrine-project.org/documentation/manual/2_0/en/pdf i would rub >>my hands. > > Either you're a troll or you're misinformed... > > You keep referring to a "failure" but leave it unspecified - Benjamin made > a decision that writing Zend_Entity et al. was simply not possible at this > time. He was the sole developer and had no assistance. > > I also have never heard of Xyster - so it would have been a surprise to > see it adopted. > > SensioLabs may be rubbing their hands for some reason, but not because our > adoption of Doctrine assists Symfony. Developers have been using Doctrine > with the Zend Framework since forever. The only thing that has changed is > making its integration a formal development goal. In my mind that is a > success given Doctrine's popularity that will actually do the opposite of > what you seem to suspect. I could say the same for other forms of > integration. > > Symfony has an advantage in that it bundles third party libraries while ZF > reinvents them or misses the features they offer (sometimes not for the > better). Maybe the integration of Doctrine will prompt a look at what else > has been missing - YAML, HTML filtering, etc. > > Paddy > > Pádraic Brady > > http://blog.astrumfutura.com > http://www.survivethedeepend.com > OpenID Europe Foundation Irish Representative > > > > > > > From: Arié Bénichou > To: fw-general@lists.zend.com > Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 10:08:39 AM > Subject: Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine > integration > > > Hi, > > > drm-4 wrote: >> >> If you'd like integration for Xyster, write a proposal for it. >> > Please Gerard, don't tell me what i'm supposed to do. You don't get the > point here, the question is : why did'nt you use Xyster ORM? > > > drm-4 wrote: >> >> And Sensio is the devil...? What's your point? Let alone the fact that >> Doctrine is simply open source (LGPL) and whatever company would be >> behind it wouldn't make any difference? Also, check your facts, because >> what you say isn't even true. >> > > SensioLabs is not the devil, obviously, it's simply your main competitor. > It's a pity that you decided to reinvent the wheel, met a 'little > blockade', > resigned and decided to go for Doctrine on this failure. You could have > started by providing integration to the popular Doctrine, then have a look > to the Xyster Orm. So, as i said, it's a pity, that you failed this way. > If > i were SensioLabs, > http://www.doctrine-project.org/documentation/manual/2_0/en/pdf i would > rub > my hands . > > So, i will ask my question again : why did'nt you use Xyster ORM? > > -Arié > -- > View this message in context: > http://n4.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp648011p787423.html > Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp648011p787521.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration
Hi Gerard, You completely misunderstood my post. This post is not about how I'm looking at open source. It's quite simple : why did'nt you use Xyster ORM? Benjamin gave me a partial answer with the base class entity problem. -Arié drm-4 wrote: > > Hi, > > Arié Bénichou wrote: >> Please Gerard, don't tell me what i'm supposed to do. You don't get the >> point here, the question is : why did'nt you use Xyster ORM? >> > Indeed I don't get the point. And I think that is because your reasoning > is flawed. You are basically saying we should use Xyster, because we > should not use Doctrine. Imho you should keep these two issues separate. > First: why not use Doctrine. Second: why use Xyster. > > Regarding the first, I disagree with your point that Sensiolabs is "the > competitor". If sensiolabs decides to be heavily involved in the > development of Doctrine, all the better for us (as in: users of open > source), because it is good for the continuation of the project. If > you're in any way hostile towards sensiolabs, just because they thought > of symfony, you're (imho) looking at open source the wrong way. The only > thing that really counts is licensing, because that gives us (again: > users of open source) freedom. > > Regarding the second: I'm sorry I gave you the idea that I'm telling you > what to do. Let me rephrase: you are cordially invited to write a > proposal. > > > Gerard > > -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp648011p787481.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration
Hi Benjamin, Thanks for your reply. Reading the http://www.doctrine-project.org/blog/php-5-3-and-doctrine-2-0-teaser doctrine 2.0 teaser , I noticed that Doctrine planned to eliminate the need for an entity to extend from a base class. Althought, it sounds like writing an entity class is a little bit easier, since it can be any plain old php object, the reasons were not given. Then you said, a such base class is the root of all evils... Could you please, explain the difficulties you faced with entities having to extend a base class? greetings, -Arié beberlei wrote: > > > Hello, > > Its not a failure to recognize that a proposal generates lots of > "duplicate > code", which is currently better solved in other projects. This also > has nothing to do with Zend, since the component was approved > under the premise that its community contributed. An ORM is a huge > undertaking and it creates lots of code that has to be maintained > and I as a community member decided that its probably not doable. > > Xyster ORM maybe existing for some time, however i haven't seen it in > use. Additionally although they claim not be ActiveRecord you have > to extend a certain base class for your entities to work with it. > This is the root of all evil in ORMs and the reason why enterprise > ORMs don't require it. > > The lead developer of Doctrine is indeed paid by SensioLabs, however > the Source Code is under the LGPL, which is a perfectly compatible > license with New BSD and doesn't restrict the use of the code. > There is also no effort whatsoever by SensioLabs to control Doctrine. > > Looking at it the other way, Doctrine is already several years old, > plus it benefits from lots of experience of the PEAR MDB2 component > aswell as others (eZ Components, ZF). The code basis is pretty robust > and there are people working on its perfection full time, which makes > it a pretty good choice for Enterprises. > > Going for Integration with Doctrine in my opinion is one step further > to professionaling php as an enterprise language. The different PHP > communities where cooking their own soups for the last 10 years. Although > I like competition very much, one should also make rational decisions > when it is better not to reinvent the wheel. > > greetings, > Benjamin > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:51:38 -0800 (PST), Arié Bénichou > wrote: >> I don't understand why you did not use http://xyster.libreworks.net/ >> Xyster >> ORM >> It makes use of the Data Mapper Pattern and comes with a Unit of Work. >> Doctrine is shifting to this approach for the version 2.0, but it's still >> an >> alpha release. >> It's a pity for you to have failed this way, because, Doctrine is >> associated >> to SensioLabs, the french agency who developps the Symfony Framework. > > -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp648011p787474.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration
Hi, drm-4 wrote: > > If you'd like integration for Xyster, write a proposal for it. > Please Gerard, don't tell me what i'm supposed to do. You don't get the point here, the question is : why did'nt you use Xyster ORM? drm-4 wrote: > > And Sensio is the devil...? What's your point? Let alone the fact that > Doctrine is simply open source (LGPL) and whatever company would be > behind it wouldn't make any difference? Also, check your facts, because > what you say isn't even true. > SensioLabs is not the devil, obviously, it's simply your main competitor. It's a pity that you decided to reinvent the wheel, met a 'little blockade', resigned and decided to go for Doctrine on this failure. You could have started by providing integration to the popular Doctrine, then have a look to the Xyster Orm. So, as i said, it's a pity, that you failed this way. If i were SensioLabs, http://www.doctrine-project.org/documentation/manual/2_0/en/pdf i would rub my hands . So, i will ask my question again : why did'nt you use Xyster ORM? -Arié -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp648011p787423.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine integration
I don't understand why you did not use http://xyster.libreworks.net/ Xyster ORM It makes use of the Data Mapper Pattern and comes with a Unit of Work. Doctrine is shifting to this approach for the version 2.0, but it's still an alpha release. It's a pity for you to have failed this way, because, Doctrine is associated to SensioLabs, the french agency who developps the Symfony Framework. -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Discontinuing-Zend-Entity-in-favour-of-Doctrine-integration-tp648011p787382.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
