ya I would agree with erik on this one...its a great idea that it would work that way but in reality...its hard enough to switch out databases much less the layer between your goop and the databases
jesse On Feb 6, 2008 1:51 PM, Erik Bengtson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FYI, JPA TCK has very low coverage over the spec itself, that said being > compliant is certainly not a portability label. > > You will only get portability if you test your jpa code against all > implementations and find the lowest common denominator. > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Thierry Lach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : mercredi 6 février 2008 17:34 > À : continuum-dev@maven.apache.org > Objet : Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap > > Hibernate can be used in a completely JPA-compliant mode, so it would be > (theoretically) just as swappable as any other JPA implementation as long > as > you don't use any hibernate-specific extensions. > > On Feb 5, 2008 10:12 PM, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Toplink is mentioned, but it's a commercial app, and I don't think > > they'll license it in a way that's compatible (unless they've > > radically changed policies recently). I'm not a huge hibernate fan, > > but at least its supported. At least with JPA and decent abstraction, > > you should be able to have more "swapability" though at the O/R-M > > level I find it's rare to get true swapability. > > > > I've been using and supporting spring for a long time, but after doing > > some tapestry work, and re-thinking IoC approaches, I'm moving in > > favor of picocontainer. Tapestry doesn't use picocontainer but has an > > IoC framework that's got some similar design concepts. Actually, that > > gets to another point, which is that Tapestry is happy and easy and > > fun (well, T5), and since it comes with an IoC framework that can > > integrate cleanly with Spring if we want that benefit, you can get the > > whole kit together. > > > > The other nice thing about Tapestry, is that several people have made > > "quickstart" projects which include everything Continuum would likely > > use including Spring, spring-acegi, hibernate/jpa, etc. One could use > > that as a structural basis, and T5 is (currently) built with maven, > > and will at least be deployed to maven repositories in perpetuity. > > > > Christian. > > > > > > On 5-Feb-08, at 19:12 , Carlos Sanchez wrote: > > > > > Some comments > > > > > > Database vs xml: definitely database. Throwing away the db access api > > > (JDO/JPA/...) now that it's already there doesnt make much sense. > > > Maybe there are implementations that use xml for storage and that's > > > where you'd need to look if you want file storage > > > > > > Spring vs Guice vs Plexus: Spring for sure. Big community, lots of > > > users, documentation, support,... Specially if you want to add JMX > > > support (can be done really easily just with annotations using > > > reflection), and thinking in OSGi in the future I'm sure it will be > > > really easy to integrate Spring and OSGi if it is not already. I'd > > > start softly, just migrating thing that would require adding features > > > to plexus, and move from there. > > > > > > I agree with Brett on having 1.2, 1.3,... it's good to have a list of > > > what you want to do for 2.0 but as it gets done it should be released > > > in minor versions. > > > > > > On Jan 29, 2008 2:34 PM, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > >> Hi > > >> > > >> I started a document [1] with my ideas about Continuum 2. > > >> As you can see in this doc, I want to add lot of things in the next > > >> version. > > >> > > >> Feel free to comment on it. > > >> > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/CONTINUUM/Continuum+2.0+Design+Discussion > > >> > > >> Emmanuel > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > I could give you my word as a Spaniard. > > > No good. I've known too many Spaniards. > > > -- The Princess Bride > > > > > > > > > -- jesse mcconnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
