Niklas I have always been lazy, letting a container do most of the jdbc stuff for me (first EJB, now spring+jpa+annotation), so plain jdbc is not my strength. But I will tell if I get time to do a full filesystem implementation, which is currently beyond the scope of our project. It might be that I end up doing either jdbc or a full Spring implementation to fulfill our needs. I will let you know.
Tore On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:59 PM, mobic.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A plain jdbc implementation of the file system is a good idea. For our need > we also need the application to be notified, I suppose this can be handled > by a small ftplet. Would you be able to contribute one to the project? I'll be happy point you in the right direction but I don't have the time to develop the entire solution at the moment. > A spring implementation should also be evaluated. We are using JPA+Spring > for our implementation, and are currently testing JPA+Spring for the STORE > command. I think that for a basic implementation, Spring+JPA is a bit heavy-weight to include in the code project, but I would be happy to have one as either an example or as an extension. /niklas
