same point as for the ticket regarding a Tapestry viewer... there's nothing in the ticket other than naming some other persistence mechanism and say "why not integrate".
Now that we have a JDO objectstore, I'm hopeful we won't need to be writing new object stores; indeed, hopefully we can remove some object stores in the future and reduce the size of the Isis codebase (see other thread I raised this morning). Dan On 30 August 2012 13:26, Mohammad Nour El-Din <[email protected]>wrote: > Also out of being curious why closing this issue :) ? > > I think we need to discuss the value of that integration and if not > needed we then close the issue as won't fix ? > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Dan Haywood (JIRA) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel] > > > > Dan Haywood resolved ISIS-222. > > ------------------------------ > > > > Resolution: Won't Fix > > > > indeed, gonna close this as 'wont-fix' since no work been done on it. > > > >> Integration with Apache EmpireDB > >> -------------------------------- > >> > >> Key: ISIS-222 > >> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-222 > >> Project: Isis > >> Issue Type: New Feature > >> Components: Runtimes: Dflt > >> Reporter: Mohammad Nour > >> Priority: Minor > >> Labels: empiredb, isis,, objectstore > >> > >> - It would be nice to EmpireDB to abstract different objectsore > operations > >> - How exactly should that be not yet defined > >> - More details later > > > > -- > > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > > If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA > administrators > > For more information on JIRA, see: > http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira > > > > -- > Thanks > - Mohammad Nour > ---- > "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" > - Albert Einstein >
