Re GWT [Was: JPA crossroads]

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

I just started playing around with GWT and Google App Engine yesterday.
It seems to me that you could get Cayenne working with it, especially
with Cayenne server-side and ROP.   But I think you could go a step
further and probably get Cayenne working directly with the Google
AppStore via a custom db adaptor.

Like you said, there's some limitations, but I don't know if Cayenne's
use of reflection is that involved.   Just a matter of someone taking
a look at it.  I know that someone had JSF 1.1 working on it
yesterday.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Andrey Razumovsky
<ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've never used JPA as it is, so I don't have any objections for excluding
> it. But I really feel that Cayenne should rise another strict "plan for
> 3.0". It's much simplier to tell users that Cayenne's going to grow and
> improve when you have one.
> About Cayenne and Web 2.0.. This is a theme I would like to discuss.
> Currently I'm using Cayenne and GWT (not Cayenne *with* GWT) and JSON for
> transporting data between client and server. I, however, dream of something
> ROP-like in GWT. There are two major disparities - the lack of synchronious
> requests and the lack of Reflection, which make it a far target. I'm
> planning to do some research in this someday.
>
> 2009/4/9 Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>
>
>> While generally I have no objections to doing it one step at a time, let's
>> look at the practical side of it. At the minimum we'll need to exclude
>> cayenne-jpa-unpublished from cayenne-server aggregated artifact. This is
>> easy and non-invasive. But... we'll also need to remove the JPA docs from
>> the release bundle, and make a clear statement on the site about the JPA
>> status ("not a part of Cayenne"). As a result it doesn't look like any
>> marketing benefit will be preserved, so is it worth the trouble of going
>> half way with it?
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 09/04/2009, at 4:03 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
>>>  What needs to be moved out is "cayenne-jpa-unpublished" (and the
>>>> corresponding itest modules), NOT the lifecycle events or EJBQL stuff in
>>>> "cayenne-jdk1.5-unpublished" - these we will keep. As I mentioned before we
>>>> are legally prohibited by the JSR license agreement from releasing
>>>> non-compliant provider as a final release. So we can't make 3.0-final that
>>>> includes classes from "cayenne-jpa-unpublished". This was the driving factor
>>>> behind this discussion. Having to support API compliance of the backend is
>>>> also a consideration, albeit minor for now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That makes sense. Could the simple solution for the legal issue be just a
>>> change to the maven scripts so that JPA doesn't end up in the final
>>> packaging. Then soul searching can be postponed for a while to let the dust
>>> settle.
>>>
>>> Ari Maniatis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------->
>>> ish
>>> http://www.ish.com.au
>>> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
>>> phone +61 2 9550 5001   fax +61 2 9550 4001
>>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>