Hey Lucio,
Well you've pretty much described what I like about Warp in your
response ;)
It would be fantastic if both persistence layers could combine or at
least mirror each other somehow, we'll see what Dhanjii thinks. I
think there would need to be both Spring and Guice DI implementations
though (Spring for wide audience and Guice for fun).
The webapp layers for Warp and Parancoe are definitely different, but
I'm mostly interested in the persistence layer at the moment and they
are quite a few similarities. I personally don't care too much about
the CRUD method naming, everyone seems to have their own preference.
Parancoe is further along with the abstraction, having both CRUD and
true dynamic finder methods is amazing (not even having to use named
queries). Whereas Warp is pretty simple from a configuration
perspective due to Guice DI. Both projects complement each other.
Here is the thread I posted on the warp board yesterday, which
describes what I think would be a very popular DAO layer:
http://groups.google.com/group/warp-core/browse_frm/thread/ff544fd7bf...
On Aug 17, 10:38 am, Lucio Benfante <lucio.benfa...@jugpadova.it>
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> thank You very much for your interest in Parancoe, and for the
> references in your email. Very interesting projects.
> The warp-persistence project is very similar to the Parancoe
> persistence, and there are some nice ideas. I don't know if a
> collaboration could be possible (who knows...maybe you can act as common
> contact, as you know all three frameworks...), but I will surely be
> inspired by it....mostly the annotations at method level and at
> parameter level...but I still like the (maybe default) Parancoe
> conventions from the method name. :)
> Krank...its persistence part is too diffusive for me...too much
> configuration and code to type for writing and using a DAO, and I really
> don't understand the need of a new criteria API. Am I missing something?
> Maybe it could be interesting for the presentation layer, but at present
> I don't know...I'm still convinced the right way should be to simplify
> the Java code the programmer need to write, without code generation or
> custom tags (but other Parancoe developers are not of the same
> opinion...so who knows... :) )
> Have You any comment or suggestion about Parancoe and its development?
> Or are You interesed to collaborate?
> Kind regards,
> Lucio
> Dave Rapin ha scritto:
> > Hi,
> > I've played around with Paranco in the past and I really like the
> > concepts behind it. It really simplifies the DAO layer.
> > Lucio, you may want to take a look at Warp which is doing something
> > pretty similar but using Google Guice instead of Spring for DI:
> >http://www.wideplay.com/
> >http://www.wideplay.com/guicewebextensions2
> >http://groups.google.com/group/warp-core
> > The main contributor, Dhanji, is pretty active.
> > I would love to see a combined DAO abstraction for these two projects
> > and also another one called Krank. He main contributor Rick is pretty
> > active.
> >http://code.google.com/p/krank/
> > There are a lot of similarities between these projects and I think if
> > there was some collaboration, at least at the persistence layer, much
> > could be achieved.
> --
> Lucio Benfante
> JUG Padova http://www.parancoe.org...have a look at it!www.jugpadova.it
> smime.p7s
> 4KDownload
