Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26989 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2004 09:09:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Oct 2004 09:09:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 38076 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2004 09:08:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 37975 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2004 09:08:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 37930 invoked by uid 99); 14 Oct 2004 09:08:36 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of l.garulli@gmail.com designates 64.233.170.206 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.170.206] (HELO mproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.170.206) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:08:35 -0700 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 75so655860rnk for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.151.14 with SMTP id y14mr2890840rnd; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.102.64 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:08:33 +0200 From: Luca Garulli Reply-To: Luca Garulli To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Daisy as CMS: why don't use JDO? In-Reply-To: <3FC144CC-1D4E-11D9-8A87-000A95DC4186@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <40A43BDD-1D1A-11D9-8A87-000A95DC4186@apache.org> <3FC144CC-1D4E-11D9-8A87-000A95DC4186@apache.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:29:49 +0200, Ugo Cei wrote: > Il giorno 13/ott/04, alle 19:22, Luca Garulli ha scritto: > > > This is the point. Using JDO allow you to switch the JDO > > implementation and obviously repository without lock to a product!!! > > Isn't enought? > > I don't speak about product preference. I'm talking of STANDARD. JDO > > is a STANDARD. > > If this were true, everyone would be using JDO exclusively by now. JDBC > is as much a standard as JDO and SQL even more so. > Sorry but I didn't want to start a flame.. If you use JDBC you had to develop the Object/Relational mapping for your "persistent classes" !!! Let's use JDO and you don't worry about OR mapping. Dot. Everyone has own preferences about OR mapping. Surely it was better to use OJB (or any others) rather than writing this task by hand. I don't want to teach to anyone why it's better to not reinvent the wheel. Using a (good) standard such as JDO allows much more portability and performance. That's all folks. bye, Luca Garulli OrienTechnologies.com (the light ODBMS, all in one JDO solution)