db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert S. Sfeir" <rob...@codepuccino.com>
Subject Re: State Tracking
Date Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:39:05 GMT
Is OTM even in use by anyone besides Brian?  I haven't seen much 
traffic in the patch area for the OTM, is there a reason we can't yank 
it for the Dirty* changes?

R

On Jul 18, 2004, at 11:23 PM, Brian McCallister wrote:

> The stuff I have been doing with o.a.o.broker.dirty.* has led me to 
> realize generalizing that state tracking is a pretty trivial step 
> beyond what it does now.
>
> I am thinking hard about writing a general state tracking and 
> unit-of-work library without an OJB dependency, then swapping out the 
> Dirty* stuff to use that library.
>
> Benefits to OJB
> 	Shrinks codebase
> 	Encourages reuse of modules (this would be a module)
> 	Provide transaction handling for transient instances
>
> Drawbacks
> 	Duplication of purpose with the OTM
> 	General solution will be slightly less perfect, probably
>
> The OTM worries me right now. It is extremely complex, has subtle 
> issues, the two primary creators of it are no longer working on it, 
> and the primary person now working on it (Oleg) doesn't actually *use* 
> it.
>
> -Brian
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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