commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: Jakarta Persistence Framework?
Date Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:36:14 GMT

On 17 Dec 2001, Bryan Field-Elliot wrote:

> Date: 17 Dec 2001 11:35:04 -0700
> From: Bryan Field-Elliot <>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>
> Subject: Re: Jakarta Persistence Framework?
> Well, I certainly don't like to see work duplicated, and it seems that
> there are many other efforts under way (some of them within Jakarta) to
> build a generic persistence framework. That said, however, some
> additional considerations might still point towards the usefulness of a
> new framework:
> I, at least, am interested in something which integrates elegently with
> Struts (in a clearly designed way), such that your Actions are doing
> database work (with auto-commit and auto-rollback intelligently
> integrated with how Struts Actions are laid out), and your Views can
> view the same data (ideally, the same beans) in some kind of read-only
> capacity.
> The DynaBean discussion is interesting, because if Struts development is
> moving in that direction to make the DynaBean an important piece, then
> perhaps a Struts-friendly persistence mechanism should also use the
> DynaBean, in which case, there's nothing yet built which fits the bill.
> I wouldn't think of proposing anything which slows down the development
> of Craig's DynaBean idea -- however I would be interested in,
> concurrently, seeing if a nice persistence mechanism could be layered on
> top of it or along side it.

Having nice persistence frameworks is a good idea.  It's not clear to me
that this is a "one size fits all" situation (although it might be).  But,
it seems to me that it's mostly independent of the DynaBean discussions
which are focused more on generalizing ActionForm (from a Struts
perspective) and facilitating value objects -- I hadn't really considered
it to be directly applicable to persistence layers.  Do you think it
should be?

As additional pointers to persistence layer information, the J2EE docs
(Blueprints and "Core J2EE Patters") talk about "Data Access Object"
design patterns that address persistence issues.

> Bryan


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message