<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ZF and Doctrine 1 integration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.zendframeworkinaction.com/2010/05/26/zf-and-doctrine-1-integration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.zendframeworkinaction.com/2010/05/26/zf-and-doctrine-1-integration/</link>
	<description>A book about Zend Framework</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:18:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benjamin "balupton" Lupton</title>
		<link>http://www.zendframeworkinaction.com/2010/05/26/zf-and-doctrine-1-integration/comment-page-1/#comment-719</link>
		<dc:creator>Benjamin "balupton" Lupton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 09:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zendframeworkinaction.com/?p=323#comment-719</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I agree with Jonathon while it being great news, having a solid Doctrine 2.0 integration would be more beneficial. It feels as those who want Doctrine 1.2 integration already have it, so at least to me I doubt this can offer anything new - although I will still jump on the bandwagon and test it out.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately Doctrine 1.2 support is pretty much dead, each month I tend to discover a new issue that I have to place upon myself to fix and working with it day by day you quickly realise the areas which really need substantial improvement to (which of course what Doctrine 2.0 is addressing). I&#039;ll definitely re-evaluate my decision on using Doctrine 1.2 over Doctrine 2.0 in the coming weeks, as well as evaluate the Symphony 2.0 release.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Jonathon while it being great news, having a solid Doctrine 2.0 integration would be more beneficial. It feels as those who want Doctrine 1.2 integration already have it, so at least to me I doubt this can offer anything new &#8211; although I will still jump on the bandwagon and test it out.</p>

<p>Unfortunately Doctrine 1.2 support is pretty much dead, each month I tend to discover a new issue that I have to place upon myself to fix and working with it day by day you quickly realise the areas which really need substantial improvement to (which of course what Doctrine 2.0 is addressing). I&#8217;ll definitely re-evaluate my decision on using Doctrine 1.2 over Doctrine 2.0 in the coming weeks, as well as evaluate the Symphony 2.0 release.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathon</title>
		<link>http://www.zendframeworkinaction.com/2010/05/26/zf-and-doctrine-1-integration/comment-page-1/#comment-714</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 16:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zendframeworkinaction.com/?p=323#comment-714</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m definitely interested in Doctrine + ZF, however I&#039;ve moved on to Doctrine 2 and haven&#039;t looked back... So, while this is exciting that they are making progress on getting the two more integrated, it doesn&#039;t really help me out that much moving forward.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m definitely interested in Doctrine + ZF, however I&#8217;ve moved on to Doctrine 2 and haven&#8217;t looked back&#8230; So, while this is exciting that they are making progress on getting the two more integrated, it doesn&#8217;t really help me out that much moving forward.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: www.zendframeworkinaction.com @ 2012-02-05 02:52:23 -->
