db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Armin Waibel <arm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: OTM CollectionProxy Bug =(
Date Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:52:35 GMT


Brian McCallister wrote:
> For 1.0, however, we could call the OTM unstable (adopt Cocoon semantics).
> 

+1 think this is a honest paraphrase ;-)

Further on we will need some changes in otm package for 1.1, e.g. the 
object copy strategy stuff should be moved to the kernel, because we 
need the object copy stuff in the new two-level cache.

The otm.transaction package is duplicated code from odmg.transaction, 
this should be moved to kernel too, because PB-api use this classes too.

And we need a lot more of OTM documentation (similar to Brian's 
introduction), how locking and relations work, pitfalls, performance 
optimations,...

regards,
Armin

> -Brian
> 
> On Apr 8, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Brian McCallister wrote:
> 
>> I thought we decided back in December to "official support" the OTM in 
>> 1.0. I am not completely sure it should be as the code is a little 
>> less than mature/stable/fully functional right now -- but Oleg is 
>> working hard, and I'm trying hard to find the bugs =)
>>
>> That said, I think we *need* to support the OTM as it is the only way 
>> outside of ODMG to get automatic dirtying, etc. "Outside of ODMG" is 
>> important as the ODMG is all but undocumented (you can find lots of 
>> ODMG docs, but it requires google, and the docs are more often on O2 
>> which is awfully similar at least).
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2004, at 8:06 AM, Armin Waibel wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> Robert S. Sfeir wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can't help but cringe when I see that code is still getting changed 
>>>> in RC mode :-)  I know I know It's busted and it will be better, I 
>>>> just think that when future released are planned, we ought to at 
>>>> least have a rule that says if we go RC no new features or full 
>>>> rewrites of stuff, just bug fixes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK the OTM-api is not official supported in 1.0 - but maybe I'm 
>>> wrong. In that case continual development is allowed in my opinion ;-)
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Armin
>>>
>>>> JMHO
>>>> R
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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