Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48DCBC70B for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:06:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 85826 invoked by uid 500); 27 Apr 2012 11:06:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 85788 invoked by uid 500); 27 Apr 2012 11:06:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 85780 invoked by uid 99); 27 Apr 2012 11:06:37 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:06:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 216.139.250.139 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of decebal.suiu@gmail.com) Received: from [216.139.250.139] (HELO joe.nabble.com) (216.139.250.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:06:31 +0000 Received: from [192.168.236.139] (helo=joe.nabble.com) by joe.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SNj05-0004s5-HX for users@jackrabbit.apache.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 04:06:09 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 04:06:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Decebal Suiu To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Message-ID: <1335524769535-4592355.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1335435741576-4589402.post@n4.nabble.com> <1335522058326-4592297.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Re: JCR application design MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fabi=C3=A1n Mandelbaum wrote >=20 > At first, we did use OCM, it wasn't JackRabbit's though, it was JCROM > (http://code.google.com/p/jcrom/). >=20 > But then, we went, and stayed with, "plain", done-by-hand, DAO > objects. We have one DAO for each business object, and those DAOs are > maintained by us, not by an automated OCM solution. >=20 > The reason is that we needed more control sometimes on the > (de-)serialization of objects, so we wrote our own DAOs. >=20 > JCROM did prove to be a very nice solution for "regular" business > applications, but ours has special needs. Maybe things changed now, > but we didn't look back. >=20 > Hope this helps. Good luck! >=20 We also use jcrom (that seems to be dead) with a StoregeUpdater mechanism (change jcr nodes structure according to last business objects definitions on start application) on a medium size application and everything is ok. Have a nice day, Decebal -- View this message in context: http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/JCR-ap= plication-design-tp4561691p4592355.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.