Difference between revisions of "Persistence unified"
(→Diagrams and code samples) |
|||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
==Diagrams and code samples== | ==Diagrams and code samples== | ||
| − | Here is a link to the [[persistence code samples]] page where you can have a look at some code and | + | Here is a link to the [[persistence code samples]] page where you can have a look at some code and a class diagram. |
==Open discussion== | ==Open discussion== | ||
Revision as of 01:39, 19 August 2007
Contents
Unified persistence for Eiffel
This project is about developing a single, integrated and simple persistence framework for Eiffel.
- Single because nothing else should be needed to access any kind of persistence services (e.g. serialization, RDBMS, OODBMS).
- Integrated because aims at integrating both the already existing technologies and frameworks and possibly new ones, as far as they all deliver the intended benefits.
- Simple because by removing all the unnecessary complexity it should be very easy and straightforward to use even for an Eiffel newcomer programmer.
A tentative manifesto
The first proposed task is to agree upon a sort of ‘manifesto’ of desirable features for the framework.
Here is a first proposal:
- Essential abstractions
- Independence from persistence code
- Uniform access
- Encapsulation and extension
- Pure Eiffel
- Newbie-proof
You can find some details in the following paragraphs.
Essential abstractions
The framework should provide just three abstractions to the developer: PERSISTENCE_MEDIUM, PERSISTENCE_FORMAT and PERSISTENCE_MANAGER.
Possible specializations of these abstractions could be:
- FILE_MEDIUM, NETWORK_MEDIUM, RELATIONAL_DB_MEDIUM, CUSTOM_MEDIUM, ...
- BINARY_FORMAT, STRING_FORMAT, XML_FORMAT, DADL_FORMAT, CUSTOM_FORMAT, ...
- BINARY_SERIALIZATION_MANAGER, RDBMS_MANAGER, CUSTOM_MANAGER, ...
Independence from persistence code
Classes which objects have to be persisted should not be polluted with persistence code, for example by adding specific persistence-related attributes or by inhering from some other class that provides persistence services.
Uniform access
The access to the persistence services should be as uniform as possible. This can be achieved using the XXX_MANAGER class hierarchy that handles access to specific kinds of persistence stores.
Encapsulation and extension
The different media should be properly incapsulated and the same time there should be place for extensions. This can be achieved using the XXX_MEDIUM class hierarchy.
The different formats should be properly incapsulated and the same time there should be place for extensions. This can be achieved using the XXX_FORMAT class hierarchy.
Pure Eiffel
No external calls to C macros, just plain Eiffel should be used to implement the framework
Newbie-proof
Ideally the programmer should only create the desired manager object and invoke the features to store or retrieve an object passing the object itself as an argument.
Diagrams and code samples
Here is a link to the persistence code samples page where you can have a look at some code and a class diagram.
Open discussion
For an open discussion on the design choices please have a look at the persistence framework design discussion.
Additional tasks
Which name?
Find an appropriate name for the framework is, of course, absolutely fundamental. It seems fair that anyone interested could provide one or more names within a certain period of time. After that a poll may be created to determine the winner. A first proposal could be EIUNPE which stands for EIffel UNified PErsistence.
