Re: ADC Core Data article

FROM : Philip Mötteli
DATE : Thu Apr 07 08:32:55 2005

Am 07.04.2005 um 01:28 schrieb James Duncan Davidson:
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 05:47 , Philip Mötteli wrote:

>> Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I don't really see, what Core
>> Data has more to offer than EOF? I see though, that it seems to be a
>> cleaner and compacter implementation of a part of EOF, by leveraging
>> some new technologies.

>
>
>    1) It'll be shipping and easily linkable to applications in Tiger
> as part of the core OS.


GDL2 does this to. And only, because it links with Tiger is no reason
for me to dump EOF.


>    2) It doesn't require a database server in the sky,


That's not true!!!


> instead it works with plain ol files


As I already said (please read the postings you answer): EOF ships with
a FlatFile adaptor and you can at any moment and very quickly implement
a little SQLite adaptor ----> you have more than with Core Data and you
don't need your "database server in the sky".


>    3) It works seamlessly with Cocoa Bindings


EOF would that too.


> It's that first one that's the kicker. Considering that EOF
> essentially doesn't exist as a solution for Cocoa applications, just
> the existence of Core Data means that it offers modern Cocoa apps more
> than EOF.


If EOF offers all the rest and more, I would never invest the time and
money, to make something inferior. I would take EOF, a proven and well
fonctionning technology already in v3, make some minor changes and ship
it with Tiger.
And that's exactly, where my disapointment comes from: Core Data offers
less than EOF, even as a Desktop technology. If I would make the
effort, to implement a new persistence library, I would try to come
closer to the ideal of a persistence layer: Being as little intrusive
as possible. No Limits and no more code to write than compared to the
same software, running without persistency.
EOF was closer to the ideal. But that's – again – not the question for
me.