Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 8420 invoked by uid 98); 5 Dec 2002 20:06:02 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Received: (qmail 8388 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 20:06:00 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (63.251.56.142) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 20:06:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 13524 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2002 20:04:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 13478 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 20:04:48 -0000 Received: from cyber.s1.com (HELO s1.com) (139.131.240.43) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 20:04:48 -0000 Received: from ([139.131.240.36]) by cyber.s1.com with SMTP ; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from 139.131.240.30 by Panacea.s1.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:03:55 -0500 Received: from NRCW2KEXG01.norc.s1.com ([10.6.65.127]) by mailhub.norc.s1.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA5404 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:04:43 -0500 Received: by nrcw2kexg01.norc.s1.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:01:51 -0500 Message-ID: From: Raghuram Rajah To: 'OJB Developers List' Subject: RE: [JDO] How to proceed with our JDO implementation Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:02:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi Thomas, The timing of this is impeccable. I was the initial author of the OTM classes in the repository today. I had fallen cold since then, got pulled away into some work-related travel. I was talking to Matt Baird, just yesterday, about me taking ownership of OTM again and getting it completed. Since, I have a couple of weeks of vacation that I had to positively take before the end of this year, I thought I will use the time to get OTM off-the-ground. Between Matt, me and possibly Oleg we could get OTM to a reasonable state by the end of this year. We can further create a quick JDO wrapper on top of that. Cheers, Raghu. -----Original Message----- From: Mahler Thomas [mailto:thomas.mahler@itellium.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 7:21 AM To: OJB Developers List Subject: [JDO] How to proceed with our JDO implementation Hi all, I'd like to discuss our next steps towards JDO a bit. As an immediate reaction to Craig Russels complaint I removed the existing JDO implementation under org.apache.ojb.jdo completely. IMO we should not start to place any code in that package before we have a clear idea how to proceed. I propose to not reuse any of the existing code for three reasons: 1. After this copyright issue there remains a "bad smell" with code that I'd like to avoid. 2. The existing code does not implement any of the crucial JDO features: - JDOQL - Object level transactions - Instance Lifecycle - proper handling of enhanced instances 3. It does not contain any hints how to build a OTM based JDO implementation To provide OJB users with a JDO implementation I propose to 1. start with my OjbStore plugin to the JDORI (see code in src/jdori). Users simply have to download the jdori.jar from Sun to use a full JDO O/R Implementation! Of course we have to add some setup documentation to tutorial4 to get users started. 2. Build a full JDO implementation based on the OTM layer, as layed out in my original design proposal (http://jakarta.apache.org/ojb/jdo-proposal.html). As users can already use the JDORI/OjbStore solution there is no need to hurry to get this done. What do you think? Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: