db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Mahler <thm...@web.de>
Subject Re: cvs commit: db-ojb/src/jca/org/apache/ojb/otm/connector OTMJCAConnection.java
Date Sat, 09 Aug 2003 12:58:58 GMT
Hi all,


Matthew Baird wrote:
> No doubt this is what will happen. I just wanted to make sure
> everyone knew I had no concrete plans on teh enhancer part yet.

I agree, relying on the RI enhancer is not a real problem for the  moment.
It's even a requirement of  the JDO spec to be compatible with the RI 
enhancer, so it won't do any harm to start this way.
There is at least one sourceforge project working on a JDO enhancer. 
AFAICR it's based on BCEL for bytecode modification.

> Which
> means you still have to DL the Reference Implementation.
> 
> btw, do we have an IRC channel where OJB people can hang out and
> discuss?

There is an #ojb IRC channel at irc.werken.com. Several Jakarta people 
are online on that server.

personally I'm not a irc fan, so I'm only online if asked by someone to 
join a session...

Thomas
> 
> Cheers, Matthew
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Ketan Gangatirkar
> [mailto:jakarta-lists@ketan.org] Sent: Fri 8/8/2003 2:42 PM To: OJB
> Developers List Cc: Subject: Re: cvs commit:
> db-ojb/src/jca/org/apache/ojb/otm/connector OTMJCAConnection.java  
> 
> 
> Matthew,  Is the new implementation still compatible with the JDORI
> enhancement? Going by what I know of the enhancer stuff, it should
> be.  If so, then the conversion to a home-grown JDO could just happen
> in a more piecemeal fashion.  It's definitely a big step to have the
> run-time be OJB JDO-only, with no JDORI components.  Since the number
> of people deploying OJB JDO-based apps will greatly exceed the number
> of people actually building those apps, I don't think it's a bad
> thing to rely on the JDORI enhancer for a while.  Only the developers
> would have to concern themselves with it; deployers wouldn't know and
> wouldn't care, since what they deploy wouldn't change.  I guess what
> I'm suggesting is that the focus be on the run-time until that's
> stable and doing the enhancer at a later date.   Matthew Baird wrote:
>   > Yes! Extra special thanks to Oleg and Raghu. > > We're not that
> far away from a working implementation. I figure it > should only
> take about a week to get the whole thing working, with > the
> exception of the enhancer. I'm not sure I know exactly how to > build
> a proper enhancer yet, but it doesn't look like it'll be too > hard.
> If anyone has any ideas on this, pitch in! > > I've got some
> interesting ideas for the connector so you can use any > of the
> object-level APIs (OTM, ODMG, JDO) in a mix-and-match fashion. > I
> wouldn't recommend using the PB api in a container. We still need >
> to refactor the ODMG to use the OTM, that's not high on my list, >
> maybe someone with more ODMG experience can take a shot at it. > >
> cheers, Matthew    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org  
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org


Mime
View raw message