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: [rfc] website docs minor changes
Date Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:51:15 GMT
Martin Kalén wrote:
> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>> Also:
>>>  * status: +warning re OTM, please help updating the docs!
>> Isn't a normal note instead of a warning sufficient or do think a 
>> warning is needed because of the unsettled status?
> That was more of an "eye-catcher" for us, I planned to remove both
> notice/warning before commiting anything. I just put this up big
> where I had no clue what to write. :)

I vote to keep the "eye-catcher" in OTM section of status page (using a 
<note> element) to emphasize that work currently stopped.

>>>  * status: +notice/fixme re S.O.D.A., please help updating the docs!
>> AFAIK long time ago it was decided that the SODA support will be 
>> removed (maybe I'm wrong), because no one ever used this api.
> OK, I'll drop it from the doco again until further notice, but I think:
> *) if it is usable, why not mention it?

Sorry, I never test it.

> *) if it us unsuable, why not remove it from both docs and code?

Maybe we should discuss about the SODA api in a separate thread again 
and remove it if all agree.

>>> Update the texts for the "Testing" section.
>> +1
>> Suggest to remove in all summary.xml files the <section> element to 
>> suppress the TOC at the beginning of the document. On a summary site a 
>> TOC is not needed.
> Yes, I thought so too- it looked a bit strange with a redundand TOC like 
> so:
>   link to boxed title
>   paragraph about title
> It's really rubbing it in, in the readers face? :)
> I'll have a look a changing the boxed title into just title for all of 
> those.

Thanks. I found redundand TOC/Introduction in doc index page too.

>>> I took the latest descriptions from Commons Pool and Commons DBCP 
>>> websites and updated
>>> repository.dtd (what you see on the webpage is copied from 
>>> repository.dtd).
>>> (Note that there is a new 'minIdle' marked "since OJB 1.0.4", since 
>>> it only exists in
>>> my local codebase yet. When upgrading commons pool we got this one 
>>> "secretly" with
>>> a backwards compatible default of 0. I will add it to repository.dtd 
>>> and connection conf.)
>> Could we add these properties too (to enable prepared statement 
>> caching in DBCP, as suggested by you in another thread)?
>> poolPreparedStatements
>> maxOpenPreparedStatements
> Yup, they are in my code and I am running tests at the moment. I can't
> test those very well because they conflict with the same concept
> (PreparedStatement caching) in the Oracle JDBC-driver, I will run it
> against HSQLDB also since the DBCP solution is pure POJO-based and
> has no driver requierments at all. Ie, I _think_ it should be good
> for MaxDB/SapDB.
> I'm finishing the tests/comitts for a few smaller updates in connection
> factories in a few hours.

Great! Don't be in such a hurry, you not paid for it ;-)

>>>  http://people.apache.org/~mkalen/ojb/site/docu/guides/deployment.html#Introduction

>> +0, I run my tests against JBoss 3.2.3. Think this version is J2EE 1.3 
>> compliant, never tested with JBoss 4.0. Do we have to make a 
>> recommendation?
> Not at all, I just scanned many documents quickly and thought that
> "hey, J2SDK 1.4 is not exactly the void and unknown - do we really
> mean what we say here?".
> If you say we do, I agree by default. :)

I would suggest to remove this recommendation. J2EE 1.4/1.3 there is no 
difference in the JTA and the TxManager is the starting point for OJB to 
participate in the JTA-tx.


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

View raw message