Jason van Zyl wrote: >Hi, > >I would like to propose ObjectRelationalBridge >(http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/) as a top level subproject of >Jakarta. > >For those not familiar with ObjectBridge it is arguably one of the most >advanced persistence layers available, commercial or otherwise. It is >accompanied by an extensive, current documentation set which includes a >quick start guide, tutorials, a FAQ, design documentation describing how >certain features of OJB have been implemented, and deployment guides. > >The developer community is incredibly strong and currently consists of >17 inviduals: three of whom are Jakarta committers, and one of the core >Castor developers. So the project has the numbers and has displayed some >collaboration with other projects. There are developers from the Torque >team (the simple table->object persistence tool within the turbine >subproject) too so there is obvious interest in OJB. The current list of >developers can be found here: > >http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=13647 > >I would also like to note that David Taylor, a Jetspeed fellow, also >contributed to the internal transaction mechanism. So again, another >point of interest within Jakarta. > >OJB is currently being used in the Jetspeed project, and integration is >well underway in the Turbine project and Thomas Mahler, the author of >OJB, uses OJB in conjunction with Struts as part of some of the >solutions his company provides for clients. Thomas is also a user of >TopLink, which is the only product that is even remotely comparable with >OJB, so he is very familiar with both and reports that OJB is on par >with TopLink with to respect to performance and available features. > >I won't go into a complete list of features, but here are some of the >features that set OJB apart: > >o Pluggable APIs: Currently there is the native PersistenceBroker API, a >full ODMG API (which provides enhanced transaction isolation) and a JDO >implementation is in the works. OJB has been designed to allow different >front-end APIs for maximum flexibility. The ODMG API, for example, is a >small set of classes layered over top the core of OJB. The JDO >implementation will be very similiar in nature. > >o Pluggable query APIs: currently supported are a criteria based API >(AST based mechansism), OQL and SODA. But again they are pluggable, so >for example the query mechanism in Torque could easily be made to work >with OJB. > >These two features alone make OJB attractive as different APIs can be >made so that existing users of different systems can use OJB without >forcing clients to change code. Trying this with Torque is going to be >one of my first exercises to see how well this mechanism works. There >are many tools like Torque and OJB can be made to work with the APIs of >these projects so that greater collaboration can occur within OJB >itself. One can take a look at the source and design of OJB and quickly >determine that OJB stands in a class of its own, is very reliable, very >flexible and very performant. > >The greatest feature with respect to development is the extensive >regression testing features and the testbed. There are currently 130+ >test cases and a regression test that compares the performance of OJB >with native JDBC calls. > >A full list of features can be found here: > >http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/features.html > >OJB also makes use of many Jakarta packages: Ant, Maven, Crimson, and >Log4j. There are also plans to use more of the commons utilities where >possible so the project is already Jakarta friendly :-) > >Another interesting note is that OJB is one of the top 100 projects on >SourceForge (rank 89) with about 15,000 hits and 3,500 downloads per >month. So there is a very healthy user community that complements the >strong developer community. > >Currently the license of OJB is LGPL but in discussion with Thomas he >feels that a BSD style license like Apache's is actually a better model >and has no problem with changing the license if the donation of OJB is >accepted by the Jakarta PMC. > >This is really a one-of-a-kind project, and is definitely one of the >cases where an OSS implementation is close, if not better than its >commercial counterpart. The developer community is keen, there are great >number of users and we think that OJB would be a fabulous addition to >the set of projects that are currently housed at Jakarta. > > > i am a torque and ojb developer. here's my non-binding +1 :-)
martin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
