<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

			<rss version="2.0">
			<channel>
			<title>CacheBox Blog - Enhancement Requests</title>
			<link>http://cachebox.riaforge.org/blog/index.cfm</link>
			<description>CacheBox Blog</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:46:50 -0700</pubDate>
			<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:53:00 -0700</lastBuildDate>
			<generator>BlogCFC</generator>
			<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
			<managingEditor>sam@autlabs.com</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>sam@autlabs.com</webMaster>
			
			
			
			
			
			<item>
				<title>the CallBacks Dilemma</title>
				<link>http://cachebox.riaforge.org/blog/index.cfm/2009/9/22/callbacks</link>
				<description>
				
				EDIT: I think Barney&apos;s comment did actually help me (although I may not have realized it at the time), to find a better way to handle the more traditional ORM in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.datafaucet.com&quot;&gt;DataFaucet&lt;/a&gt; and I&apos;ve since published a new version of DF (1.1 RC1) with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.datafaucet.com/persistenceservice.cfm&quot;&gt;a more traditional ORM tool&lt;/a&gt; that uses your objects from a Dependency Injection (DI) factory. The good news imo is that the new tool doesn&apos;t require any call-backs in CacheBox. Although I think this is still a valid question: are there cases in which we actually need call-backs from the cache service? Should they be implemented in CacheBox? I&apos;m inclined to say no, but I&apos;d still like to know what others think.
				 [More]
				</description>
				
				
				<category>Enhancement Requests</category>
				
				<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:53:00 -0700</pubDate>
				<guid>http://cachebox.riaforge.org/blog/index.cfm/2009/9/22/callbacks</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			</channel></rss>