db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weaver, Scott" <Swea...@rippe.com>
Subject RE: OJB usability - part 1 of 5: versioning policy
Date Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:37:45 GMT
As much as I love OJB, I have to agree :(   I tried to move from RC4 to RC5, which was impossible
since I use the MetaCachePerClassImpl, which was removed with no obvious/easy to implement
replacement.

When OJB became RC1, there should have been a code freeze and a demarcation in the CVS where
bug fixes in the RC could be applied leaving the CVS HEAD to continue forward with enhancements
on OJB 1.0 beta 1.

Just my experiences/suggestions as die-hard OJB user ;)  

Regards,
 ________________________________
|                                |
| Scott T Weaver                 |
| <weaver@apache.org>            | 
| Apache Jetspeed Portal Project |
| Apache Pluto Portlet Container |
|________________________________|

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Giordano [mailto:giordano@more.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: ojb-dev@db.apache.org
> Subject: OJB usability - part 1 of 5: versioning policy
> 
> OJB developers:
> 
> The following feedback intends to provide constructive comments to the
> OJB developers to improve the project as a whole.  The experiences and
> observations are meant to stimulate development of world class software.
> An open source dB persistence layer solution is needed and OJB may be
> positioned to provide this in the future.
> 
> We initially began using OJB earlier this year when it looked like a 1.0
> production release was on its way soon. Release candiate 1 was out and
> others
> quickly followed indicating rapid progress. We felt confident there
> would be a
> release by this fall, well within our timeframe for a production
> deployment.
> 
> But, the release notes themselves, illustrate well that OJB is, in fact,
> not a
> release candidate at all. OJB is at best still in a BETA status. With the
> changes we see regularly occurring, it could arguably be considered still
> in
> an early BETA status.  They all start with the following statement:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> NEW FEATURES:
> - With this release we are feature complete for the 1.0 release!
> For 1.0 you should not expect more features to be added.
> 
> ...
> 
> and then to proceed with the list of changes to the API.  This is
> completely
> contradictory.  It started with rc2 and has continued on even with rc5.
> The
> interfaces are being modified all the time.  New interfaces are being
> added.
> For example, the Metadata Manager has a new feature for handling threaded
> repositories called profiles that was introduced in rc4.
> 
> As a result of continual changes to the API, our development effort with
> OJB
> suffered from breaking code as new "release candidates" were delivered.
> 
> The standard expectation for a release candidate is to have all its
> class and
> interface method signatures frozen.  At the time a project's status is
> voted
> as a release candidate it needs to be at the stage of final testing and
> debugging. We believe this reflects conventional best practices that are
> adhered to with many of the other open source projects in existence.
> 
> At this point, we've lost all confidence that OJB is ready for release
> with a
> stable, unchanging API to be developed against.
> 
> Chris Giordano
> giordano@more.net
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message