You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cayenne.apache.org by Chris Farnham <cf...@cra.com> on 2007/09/26 01:57:12 UTC
Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
I've been using Cayenne on two different projects for a couple of months
now and am very happy with it.
One thing that I don't like is the reliance upon a graphical composer
rather than a well documented and defined descriptor file. I know that
the Cayenne community views the GUI tool as an important differentiator
from other ORM frameworks. But not everyone likes to work with GUI
tools. Perhaps it's my Unix roots.
I prefer working directly with Cayenne's XML descriptor. I wish that
the schema was documented beyond just a DTD and snippets that people
pass around on this list. I also get frustrated when I find
documentation which explains how to control caching or custom queries
and all it has are step-by-step screenshots of the GUI tool.
I know that the GUI tool is part of the Cayenne philosophy and I am wary
of starting a flame-war (perhaps this discussion was happened on this
list in times past and I haven't seen it).
Do other people feel the same way I do?
If so, can Cayenne better support both modes of use?
I would like to see documentation and examples that are XML descriptor
centric as well as GUI centric.
I also think that it'd be an interesting project to look at the current
XML syntax and make it a little more user/text-editor friendly. I have
no concrete ideas on this latter point but I've been playing around with
DSLs in other areas and it might be neat to either streamline Cayenne's
XML syntax or create a DSL. Either of these could be transformed into
the current XML syntax.
I only raise this issue because I've enjoyed using Cayenne and would
like to see it improve.
Thanks,
Chris Farnham
cfarnham@cra.com
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If you are not the intended recipient, your use of this message for any purpose is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and notify the sender so that we may correct our records.
Re: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Hi Chris,
I don't think anything you said warrants starting a flame war :-) GUI
tools and text editors are not mutually exclusive. Where the Cayenne
philosophy may have played out is in the lack of interest in
documenting the XML format by the developers. But lack of interest
not equals opposing the idea. I am all for taking the DTD, and
creating a chapter in the user guide called "Cayenne XML Format" or
something and/or providing XML snippets next to the GUI screenshots
throughout the docs. If anybody is willing to participate in this
effort (even if they are not current committers), let us know - we
can arrange access to the documentation Wiki.
Thanks
Andrus
On Sep 26, 2007, at 2:57 AM, Chris Farnham wrote:
> I've been using Cayenne on two different projects for a couple of
> months
> now and am very happy with it.
>
> One thing that I don't like is the reliance upon a graphical composer
> rather than a well documented and defined descriptor file. I know
> that
> the Cayenne community views the GUI tool as an important
> differentiator
> from other ORM frameworks. But not everyone likes to work with GUI
> tools. Perhaps it's my Unix roots.
>
> I prefer working directly with Cayenne's XML descriptor. I wish that
> the schema was documented beyond just a DTD and snippets that people
> pass around on this list. I also get frustrated when I find
> documentation which explains how to control caching or custom queries
> and all it has are step-by-step screenshots of the GUI tool.
>
> I know that the GUI tool is part of the Cayenne philosophy and I am
> wary
> of starting a flame-war (perhaps this discussion was happened on this
> list in times past and I haven't seen it).
>
> Do other people feel the same way I do?
> If so, can Cayenne better support both modes of use?
>
> I would like to see documentation and examples that are XML descriptor
> centric as well as GUI centric.
>
> I also think that it'd be an interesting project to look at the
> current
> XML syntax and make it a little more user/text-editor friendly. I
> have
> no concrete ideas on this latter point but I've been playing around
> with
> DSLs in other areas and it might be neat to either streamline
> Cayenne's
> XML syntax or create a DSL. Either of these could be transformed into
> the current XML syntax.
>
> I only raise this issue because I've enjoyed using Cayenne and would
> like to see it improve.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Farnham
>
> cfarnham@cra.com
>
>
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS
> ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
> CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If
> you are not the intended recipient, your use of this message for
> any purpose is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please delete the message and notify the
> sender so that we may correct our records.
>
Re: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
Posted by Mikaël Cluseau <mi...@isinc.dyndns.org>.
You may be interested in the "Modifying projects in Java" thread of last
july.
Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 19:57 -0400, Chris Farnham a écrit :
> I've been using Cayenne on two different projects for a couple of months
> now and am very happy with it.
>
> One thing that I don't like is the reliance upon a graphical composer
> rather than a well documented and defined descriptor file. I know that
> the Cayenne community views the GUI tool as an important differentiator
> from other ORM frameworks. But not everyone likes to work with GUI
> tools. Perhaps it's my Unix roots.
>
> I prefer working directly with Cayenne's XML descriptor. I wish that
> the schema was documented beyond just a DTD and snippets that people
> pass around on this list. I also get frustrated when I find
> documentation which explains how to control caching or custom queries
> and all it has are step-by-step screenshots of the GUI tool.
>
> I know that the GUI tool is part of the Cayenne philosophy and I am wary
> of starting a flame-war (perhaps this discussion was happened on this
> list in times past and I haven't seen it).
>
> Do other people feel the same way I do?
> If so, can Cayenne better support both modes of use?
>
> I would like to see documentation and examples that are XML descriptor
> centric as well as GUI centric.
>
> I also think that it'd be an interesting project to look at the current
> XML syntax and make it a little more user/text-editor friendly. I have
> no concrete ideas on this latter point but I've been playing around with
> DSLs in other areas and it might be neat to either streamline Cayenne's
> XML syntax or create a DSL. Either of these could be transformed into
> the current XML syntax.
>
> I only raise this issue because I've enjoyed using Cayenne and would
> like to see it improve.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Farnham
>
> cfarnham@cra.com
>
>
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If you are not the intended recipient, your use of this message for any purpose is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and notify the sender so that we may correct our records.
--
Mikaël Cluseau <mc...@gmail.com>
ISI.NC
Fwd: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
FYI:
As Chris followed up on his suggestion to start working on a Wiki
page describing Cayenne XML format, I added Chris to "cayenne-user"
Wiki group and I made some permission changes in the CAY space,
allowing "cayenne-user" to edit the space. Note that since we do not
include the contents of this space in the release, this is the only
space where users without a CLA on file may be allowed. But of course
if we are to transfer the contents to CAYDOC, we'll need a CLA.
Andrus
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Chris Farnham" <cf...@cra.com>
> Date: September 26, 2007 4:42:22 PM GMT+03:00
> To: <us...@cayenne.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
> Reply-To: user@cayenne.apache.org
>
>> Such a thing would probably help other people and improve the
>> usability of Cayenne. Perhaps you'd like to start a page here:
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/
>>
>> Eventually this could be merged into the main documentation.
>
> In the next day or two I'll add a Wiki page as suggested. I expect it
> will be a strawman as much as anything.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS
> ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
> CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If
> you are not the intended recipient, your use of this message for
> any purpose is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please delete the message and notify the
> sender so that we may correct our records.
>
>
>
>
> From: Aristedes Maniatis [mailto:ari@maniatis.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:24 AM
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
>
>
> On 26/09/2007, at 9:57 AM, Chris Farnham wrote:
>
>> Do other people feel the same way I do?
>> If so, can Cayenne better support both modes of use?
>
> Sure.
>
>> I would like to see documentation and examples that are XML
>> descriptor
>> centric as well as GUI centric.
>
> I think that would be useful to a number of people.
>
>> I also think that it'd be an interesting project to look at the
>> current
>> XML syntax and make it a little more user/text-editor friendly. I
>> have
>> no concrete ideas on this latter point but I've been playing around
>> with
>> DSLs in other areas and it might be neat to either streamline
>> Cayenne's
>> XML syntax or create a DSL. Either of these could be transformed
>> into
>> the current XML syntax.
>
> The advantage of XML is that there are any number of ways to author
> the content.
>
>> I only raise this issue because I've enjoyed using Cayenne and would
>> like to see it improve.
>
> Such a thing would probably help other people and improve the
> usability of Cayenne. Perhaps you'd like to start a page here:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/
>
> Eventually this could be merged into the main documentation.
>
>
>
> Ari Maniatis
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> Aristedes Maniatis
> phone +61 2 9660 9700
> PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8
>
RE: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
Posted by Chris Farnham <cf...@cra.com>.
> Such a thing would probably help other people and improve the
> usability of Cayenne. Perhaps you'd like to start a page here:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/
>
> Eventually this could be merged into the main documentation.
In the next day or two I'll add a Wiki page as suggested. I expect it
will be a strawman as much as anything.
Thanks,
Chris
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If you are not the intended recipient, your use of this message for any purpose is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and notify the sender so that we may correct our records.
From: Aristedes Maniatis [mailto:ari@maniatis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:24 AM
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Subject: Re: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
On 26/09/2007, at 9:57 AM, Chris Farnham wrote:
> Do other people feel the same way I do?
> If so, can Cayenne better support both modes of use?
Sure.
> I would like to see documentation and examples that are XML descriptor
> centric as well as GUI centric.
I think that would be useful to a number of people.
> I also think that it'd be an interesting project to look at the
> current
> XML syntax and make it a little more user/text-editor friendly. I
> have
> no concrete ideas on this latter point but I've been playing around
> with
> DSLs in other areas and it might be neat to either streamline
> Cayenne's
> XML syntax or create a DSL. Either of these could be transformed into
> the current XML syntax.
The advantage of XML is that there are any number of ways to author
the content.
> I only raise this issue because I've enjoyed using Cayenne and would
> like to see it improve.
Such a thing would probably help other people and improve the
usability of Cayenne. Perhaps you'd like to start a page here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/
Eventually this could be merged into the main documentation.
Ari Maniatis
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
phone +61 2 9660 9700
PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8
Re: Raw XML vs. Cayenne GUI
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@maniatis.org>.
On 26/09/2007, at 9:57 AM, Chris Farnham wrote:
> Do other people feel the same way I do?
> If so, can Cayenne better support both modes of use?
Sure.
> I would like to see documentation and examples that are XML descriptor
> centric as well as GUI centric.
I think that would be useful to a number of people.
> I also think that it'd be an interesting project to look at the
> current
> XML syntax and make it a little more user/text-editor friendly. I
> have
> no concrete ideas on this latter point but I've been playing around
> with
> DSLs in other areas and it might be neat to either streamline
> Cayenne's
> XML syntax or create a DSL. Either of these could be transformed into
> the current XML syntax.
The advantage of XML is that there are any number of ways to author
the content.
> I only raise this issue because I've enjoyed using Cayenne and would
> like to see it improve.
Such a thing would probably help other people and improve the
usability of Cayenne. Perhaps you'd like to start a page here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/
Eventually this could be merged into the main documentation.
Ari Maniatis
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
phone +61 2 9660 9700
PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8