db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Dudziak <to...@first.fhg.de>
Subject Re: ojb 1.1 ideas and proposals
Date Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:42:03 GMT
Brian McCallister wrote:

> I don't disagree, I just want to be sure that we know we are reducing 
> flexibility by doing this. It may be a good thing to do all the same 
> (no pointer arithmetic in Java ;-) but it is reducing flexibility and 
> is a pretty big change.


Could you explore that some more ? Where are we losing flexibility ?

> I cannot find sources or a license on the SGen site, though. You know 
> more than I do about it, but before we depend on it I think we need to 
> make sure we can fork and distribute it if need be down the road (with 
> fork simply being a temporary option until a permanent one comes 
> along). I met Cedric a couple weeks ago and he is a smart guy, I don't 
> think he'd give anyone grief if we asked questions =)


I talked to Cedric a two weeks ago (about the inclusion of an OJB mode 
into the doclipse plugin), so I might as well ask him about this :-)

> I'd be all for moving it. If we will depend on it I want it out of the 
> incubator. Where in cvs it sits I don't care, though.
>
> +1 for graduating it to [something]-commons, be it jakarta or db if we 
> are going to actually make it core to OJB.


db-commons seems to be the right place, it is already defined but still 
empty, and it fits 'semantically' :-) Also it will be easier for OJB and 
Torque developers to gain commit access to it (same user group on the 
CVS server AFAIK).

Tom


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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