jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christophe Lombart" <christophe.lomb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Content Object Mapping - jcrom.org
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:53:46 GMT
On Feb 5, 2008 6:21 PM, Alexandru Popescu ☀ <
the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> (to Christophe)
>
> > There are commons points between both solutions in term of annotations
> but
> > JCROM doesn't support lazy loading, interface and Ă­nheritance, custom
> > converter, .... Futhermore Jackrabbit OCM makes more abstraction on the
> JCR
> > API which is not the case of JCROM.
>
> These are indeed feature that everybody will start considering at the
> point their application gets complex enough. However, people may
> consider that annotation based metadata to be easier to create and
> maintain than XML, and so putting them together will make sense. I am
> not saying that in the current form, or in a more JPA-like form.
>

Alex,

Jackrabbit OCM is also supporting the annotation like JCROM since a long
time.
XML support is not mandatory.

Concerning JPA, we can make a small study to check if JPA is really a good
solution for a JCR backend ...  if someone have time :-)

I think it is possible to have a very simple OCM tools (easier than JPA).
There are some lacks in the current Jackrabbit OCM like the documentation to
have a better adoption. Default mapping support could be also added.


> Well, my current status (plus my financial statement) are telling me
> that I am not the right person for this.
> Moreover, I do think that is time to leave some room for the younger
> to get involved in the open source ;-).
>

You are so philosophic today ;-)


Christophe
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message