On Sunday, January 6, 2013, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > On 6 January 2013 21:44, Matt Franklin > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Chris Geer > > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Matt Franklin < > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Matt Franklin > > >> <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > The MongoDb branch is about ready to be re-integrated into trunk. I > > >> > am currently going through and fixing merge conflicts caused by the > > >> > model-interface split. Currently, the only changes to the current > > >> > working code are some application context improvements and > additional > > >> > configuration attributes. In order to ensure that the jpa & mongo > > >> > modules were swappable, I tried to isolate the changes as much as > > >> > possible. Because of this, I think the risk to trunk is pretty low. > > >> > > > >> > Assuming no objections, I will merge it back to trunk before the end > > of > > >> Monday. > > >> > > >> Of course, I forgot Monday was New Year's eve. I have completed all > > >> of the work now and committed the branch back to trunk. > > >> > > >> The vast majority of changes are isolated into the rave-mongodb > > >> project. I did add new build profiles for rave-portal and rave-portal > > >> resources so that the entire rave-project can be built with MongoDB as > > >> the default persistence provider. However, the default profile is JPA > > >> and the rave-portal & rave-portal-resources releases will still be set > > >> for JPA persistence. > > >> > > >> I tested a clean build of the JPA version of rave and saw no issues > > >> with the merged code. > > >> > > > > > > Matt, quick question for you. I noticed that the group table > (collection) > > > doesn't just contain a list of user IDs but instead contains complete > > user > > > objects. What happens if the user object stored in the group and the > user > > > object stored in the users table get out of sync? Can that be > simplified > > to > > > just store the IDs? > > > > Yes, it should be. I will create a JIRA ticket. > > > > > > > > Have you done any tests using multiple providers for different > entities? > > > For example using Mongo for Users but JPA for Pages? The model split > > should > > > allow that but I don't know if the providers will allow for that. > > > > No, but doing this and documenting is important. > > > > We also should find a more elegant solution than building multiple modules > with the mongodb profile to use MongoDb, but I haven't found a clean > solution yet.
+1. I think we need to work a lot harder on making sure we have clean abstractions > > > > > > > > Can't wait to try this out! > > > > > > Chris > > >
