Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 97837 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2005 20:45:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Mar 2005 20:45:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 46423 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2005 20:45:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 46385 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2005 20:45:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "OJB Developers List" Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 46369 invoked by uid 99); 17 Mar 2005 20:45:11 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from mail.osn.state.oh.us (HELO MAIL.osn.state.oh.us) (66.145.203.12) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:45:10 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Feature Proposal: Bytecode generated Proxies Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:45:07 -0500 Message-ID: <316E5B943771D311BAC500805FD7A07804089B31@MAIL.osn.state.oh.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Feature Proposal: Bytecode generated Proxies Thread-Index: AcUrKuT1aQJkLN5cSbC9GNOdBTsE2gABkDdg From: "Clute, Andrew" To: "OJB Developers List" X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N >From what I can tell at this point, providing a drop-in-replacement for = proxies is extremely doable -- there should be no significant change. = Provided that is the case, I would like to get a consensus that it would = be acceptable to introduce that functional swap in the 1.0.X line (post = 1.0.2).=20 Part of my motivation is that I would like to get this introduced into = *my* current production system, and I don't want to deviate to far from = official releases of OJB (I have maintained separate versions a couple = of times, but it is a pain). At the same time, a new proxy system can be introduced into HEAD that = incorporates a plug-in style model. Get the best of both worlds: an = immediate scratch to the itch (or is that itch to a scratch) and a = long-term clean, flexible solution. Assuming this is acceptable, does anyone have comments or suggestions on = the changes I proposed to the metadata to support this? -Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Martin Kal=E9n [mailto:mkalen@apache.org]=20 Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:52 PM To: OJB Developers List Subject: Re: Feature Proposal: Bytecode generated Proxies I agree with Tom that this work is best done in HEAD if it's not a = drop-in-replacement for 1.0.2, however it might be a bit of overworking = it to provide a pluggable approach in 1.0.x-branch. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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