Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:10:02 +0200
To: OJB Developers List <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: OJB usability - part 1 of 5: versioning policy
In-Reply-To: <3F8D5EBC.8040006@more.net>
References: <3F8D5EBC.8040006@more.net>
Reply-To: armin@code-au-lait.de
From: Armin Waibel <armin@code-au-lait.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <oprw3gm0dl2o6nlo@smtprelay.t-online.de>
User-Agent: Opera7.20/Win32 M2 build 3144

Hi,

> 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.
I don't agree. OJB is used in production enviroments without
problems for a long time, so I think it's more than a "beta" app.

> As a result of continual changes to the API, our development effort with 
> OJB suffered from breaking code as new "release candidates" were 
> delivered.
I think from rc1 to rc4 no user api changes are made. But you are right
internal changes are made.


> For example, the Metadata Manager has a new feature for handling threaded
> repositories called profiles that was introduced in rc4.
Yes and we discuss this some month ago. It's "in bad style" add new
methods to a rc, but we can't support different branches (missing 
man-power)
for OJB, so bug fixing and minor improvements are made parallel.

I think OJB was stable for a 1.0 long time ago, but I hoped that we
could bring out a nearly perfect 1.0 (because we open-source and we don't 
have
to meet a deadline - call it naive ;-)).

Currently Oliver Matz try to find User to split
a OJB 1.0 branch with bug fix support. See

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.ojb.user/9288/

regards,
Armin

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:50:36 -0500, Chris Giordano <giordano@more.net> 
wrote:

> 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
>
>


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