> First, the Doctrine integration effort is happening *now*, and focusses
> on two separate integrations: one for the Doctrine 1 series, and one for
> the Doctrine 2 series. Doctrine 1.x works with PHP versions >= 5.2, and
> many, many folks are using it with ZF successfully already (myself
> inclu
-- Andrea Turso wrote
(on Tuesday, 01 December 2009, 03:22 PM +0100):
> Hi everybody, it seems that this thread went quite off topic.
>
> I'm quite disappointed by the decision to discontinue the development
> of a Data Mapper for the Zend Framework. I read this thread and agree
> with most of th
Hi everybody, it seems that this thread went quite off topic.
I'm quite disappointed by the decision to discontinue the development of
a Data Mapper for the Zend Framework. I read this thread and agree with most
of the reasons against building a new one and waiting for the release
of Doctrine2.
B
>
> One such area is unit testing; it's far easier to test a plain old PHP
object than it is to test something that has couplings to the database
-- which is what happens when your entities extend from a base class.
This.
Also because Doctrine is established, has many users and wide acceptance
-- Arié Bénichou wrote
(on Wednesday, 25 November 2009, 03:21 AM -0800):
> 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 sou
-- Arié Bénichou wrote
(on Wednesday, 25 November 2009, 02:08 AM -0800):
> 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?
Plain
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 12:56:20 PM
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doc
p://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:
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 Gerar
_
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.
>
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 littl
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, bec
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 al
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
Hi Arié
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.
If you'd like in
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,
Would be ZendX_Doctrine_AuthAdapter (or something), wouldn't it?
-Matt
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM, A.J. Brown wrote:
> Can we make sure the ZendX_Auth_Adapter_Doctrine gets into the
> standard library whenever the integration happens?
>
>
> http://framework.zend.com/svn/framework/extras/inc
Can we make sure the ZendX_Auth_Adapter_Doctrine gets into the
standard library whenever the integration happens?
http://framework.zend.com/svn/framework/extras/incubator/library/ZendX/Doctrine/Auth/Adapter.php
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Giorgio Sironi
wrote:
> For the Dependency Injection
For the Dependency Injection debate, until now I managed to work with
factories only. It is manual dependency injection but it works.
However, Doctrine integration would be very useful since many developers are
going to manually integrate it anyway. Maybe there is the possibility to
ship with it,
enID Europe Foundation Irish Representative
>
>
> ____________
> From: keith Pope
> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
> Sent: Fri, October 30, 2009 7:19:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine
> integration
>
>
strumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Irish Representative
From: keith Pope
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Sent: Fri, October 30, 2009 7:19:25 PM
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Discontinuing Zend Entity in favour of Doctrine
int
-- keith Pope wrote
(on Friday, 30 October 2009, 07:19 PM +):
> 2009/10/30 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> > -- keith Pope wrote
> > (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:43 PM +):
> >> 2009/10/30 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> >> > -- keith Pope wrote
> >> > (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:02 PM +00
Hi,
Also, this is my resource which i use: http://pastebin.com/d207ac465
Just add to config:
resources.database.connection_string = "mysql://user:p...@localhost/db"
resources.database.compiled = false; use compiled version of Doctrine
It enables autoloading for models and tables, utf-8 for conne
For those that are interested in my resource class:
http://gist.github.com/222645
I'm also working on making a resource for the CLI components, so that
you can do deployments from within your Zend Framework application.
For example, if the environment is a testing server, the application
will aut
2009/10/30 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> -- keith Pope wrote
> (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:43 PM +):
>> 2009/10/30 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
>> > -- keith Pope wrote
>> > (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:02 PM +):
>> > > 2009/10/30 Ralph Schindler :
>> > > Also will we be deprecating Ze
-- keith Pope wrote
(on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:43 PM +):
> 2009/10/30 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> > -- keith Pope wrote
> > (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:02 PM +):
> > > 2009/10/30 Ralph Schindler :
> > > Also will we be deprecating Zend_Db as if we have tight Doctrine
> > > integ
2009/10/30 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> -- keith Pope wrote
> (on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:02 PM +):
>> 2009/10/30 Ralph Schindler :
>> > > Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.
>> > >
>> > > Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
>>
-- keith Pope wrote
(on Friday, 30 October 2009, 04:02 PM +):
> 2009/10/30 Ralph Schindler :
> > > Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.
> > >
> > > Do you think it would be a good idea to update the Quickstart guide
> > > now to not use the Data Mapper pattern an
Hi Keith,
I agree that the data mapper is a good way to do Models etc but I
think the basic mapper shown in the quickstart does lead people into
trouble. If a newcomer follows the quickstart they soon find out that
modeling relations is very hard and they need an ORM...If we had
Doctrine 2 integ
2009/10/30 Ralph Schindler :
>
>>
>> Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I would strongly disagree with that move. I t
Time to go back to using Doctrine then :( bye bye nice models.
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?
I would strongly disagree with that move. I think ZF has always offered
2 solid solutions
I'd be very interested to have a look at your resource as I am just
prototyping now for quite a large system now so would be great to have
a look at what you have done. Thanks
On 30 Oct 2009, at 12:03, "A.J. Brown" wrote:
I use Zend Framework and Doctrine bundled together quiet frequently
Hello,
Sorry about that, but I was a little bit skeptical about Zend_Entity in the
first place. Mainly, as known now, because there was only one person
actually doing it and therefore it seemed literally impossible to complete
it in a reasonable amount of time and maintain a good code quality in t
I use Zend Framework and Doctrine bundled together quiet frequently.
If I can be of any assistance in this new direction, I'm most
certainly interested in helping.
In the short term, I have some code to boot Doctrine is a
Zend_Application_Resource with configuration, if anyone is interested.
On F
-- Georgy Turevich wrote
(on Friday, 30 October 2009, 11:31 AM +0300):
> I have not understood. The component will be developed by other people? Or it
> is discontinue for ever?
Discontinued.
All development was being done basically by Benjamin himself, and my
team is simply too small for me to
Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
I just want to inform everyone that I will discontinue development
on Zend Entity and in return invest time to integrate Doctrine with
Zend Framework on a large scale.
Excellent decision! Though I know writing a good ORM is a very fun job
and I am sure you will miss it,
I have not understood. The component will be developed by other people? Or
it is discontinue for ever?
2009/10/29 Benjamin Eberlei :
> Hello Keith,
>
> you should take a look at Doctrine 2. As Zend Entity it implements the JPA
> specification and is a true data mapper with models decoupled from Database
> completly.
Looking now, I didnt think it was nearing release yet last time I
looked it seemed
Hello Keith,
you should take a look at Doctrine 2. As Zend Entity it implements the JPA
specification and is a true data mapper with models decoupled from Database
completly.
greetings,
Benjamin
On Thursday 29 October 2009 09:19:50 pm keith Pope wrote:
> 29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> > -- An
-- keith Pope wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:19 PM +):
> 29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> > -- Antonio José García Lagar wrote
> > (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):
> >> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> >>
> >>
> >> Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x i
29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> -- Antonio José García Lagar wrote
> (on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):
>> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney
>>
>>
>> Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
>> reason - though likely as separate implementations
-- Antonio José García Lagar wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 08:17 PM +0100):
> 2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney
>
>
> Ideally, we'll have both Doctrine 1.x and 2.x integration, for this very
> reason - though likely as separate implementations (Zend_Doctrine,
> Zend_Doctrine
-- prodigitalson wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 12:04 PM -0700):
> I dont know if its even possible but id really like to see some general
> abstraction for ORM integration that these would be based on... Just to make
> it easier to integrate Propel for instance.
>
> Granted this would have
2009/10/29 Matthew Weier O'Phinney
>
> 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 resourc
I dont know if its even possible but id really like to see some general
abstraction for ORM integration that these would be based on... Just to make
it easier to integrate Propel for instance.
Granted this would have to be pretty abstract given vendor differences - or
even differences in major ve
-- Antonio José García Lagar wrote
(on Thursday, 29 October 2009, 07:24 PM +0100):
> I'm so sorry for this decision but otherwise I know this was a hard work that
> you have done mostly alone.
>
> Although the project is not finished, I congratulate you: your work has been
> excellent.
>
> Do yo
I'm so sorry for this decision but otherwise I know this was a hard work
that you have done mostly alone.
Although the project is not finished, I congratulate you: your work has been
excellent.
Do you plan to integrate Doctrine 1.x with ZF? I think that I'm not the only
one tied to PHP 5.2. I hop
Hello everyone,
I just want to inform everyone that I will discontinue development
on Zend Entity and in return invest time to integrate Doctrine with
Zend Framework on a large scale. I changed my mind for several reasons
1. It drains up all my free time and I got quite a blockade from it.
2. I a
48 matches
Mail list logo
