db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
Date Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:00:36 GMT
Hi Chris,

Good catch. I'll update the spec for the next go-around.

Thanks,

Craig

On Aug 4, 2007, at 4:18 PM, cbeams wrote:

> Not to belabor the point here, but reading on I see the following  
> in section 2.2 ("Rationale"):
>
>> There is no existing Java platform specification that proposes a  
>> standard architecture for storing the
>> state of Java objects persistently in transactional datastores.
>
> Not exactly the case anymore.  I suggest this passage be updated  
> (or eliminated) in light of JPA.  Perhaps the statement could be  
> amended to point out that there is no existing spec that proposes a  
> *datastore-agnostic* standard architecture for persistence.  This  
> is probably the chief conceptual discriminator between JDO and JPA  
> today.  No flame bait intended on this thread, btw; I'm a JDO user  
> and advocate.  I mention these things because I believe it's in  
> JDO's best interest to acknowledge JPA wherever appropriate, and  
> distinguish itself and it's raison d'ĂȘtre wherever it can.
>
> - Chris
>
> On Aug 4, 2007, at 3:49 PM, cbeams wrote:
>
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> The introduction's preamble reads:
>>
>>> Currently, aside from JDO, there are three Java standards for  
>>> storing Java data persistently: serial-
>>> ization, JDBC, and Enterprise JavaBeans. Serialization preserves  
>>> relationships among a graph of
>>> Java objects, but does not support sharing among multiple users.  
>>> JDBC requires the user to explic-
>>> itly manage the values of fields and map them into relational  
>>> database tables. Enterprise JavaBeans
>>> require a container in which to run.
>>
>> There's no mention of JPA here; I imagine there should be, as it  
>> is indeed a fourth standard.  Perhaps it's out of scope or  
>> inappropriate, but it would be nice to see the spec 'officially'  
>> address the relationship between these two increasingly similar  
>> standards.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Chris Beams
>>
>>
>>> From: Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>
>>> Date: August 3, 2007 7:04:52 PM PDT
>>> To: Apache JDO project <jdo-dev@db.apache.org>, JDO Expert Group  
>>> <jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM>
>>> Subject: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
>>>
>>>
>>> at http://db.apache.org/jdo/documentation.html
>>>
>>> Check it out, and send comments...
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ 
>>> products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message