Hi Dan, Thanks for raising this issue...
I have just returned from a long vacation and will probably have some time on my hands again (there are issues with my work permit application). This means that I may be in a position to pick up the SQL objecstore again. I will need several more days to settle in, though. I will contact you again for more help on what needs to be done ;) . If it still turns out that I will not have time, I'll not resist dropping the SQL OS for the next release.. :) Regards, Kevin On 30 Aug 2012 at 10:58, Dan Haywood wrote: > All, > > As you might have noticed, I've been tapped away implementing [ISIS-14], > namely adding a JDO object store implemented using DataNucleus (DN is > Apache 2.0 licensed, and is the reference implementation for the JDO spec). > > At the same time, I've been doing other work to simplify down the runtime > components within Isis. One of these was the removal of the remoting > support (ISIS-131), another was making Oids immutable and self-describing > (ISIS-216), another was collapsing the Version hierarchy (ISIS-245), > another was storing version information inside Oids to simplify concurrency > checking (ISIS-248). > > Most of these changes shouldn't impact existing objectstores/viewers etc > (and open up the possibility of simpifying them in the future); however > ISIS-216 in particular was a big change. Rob Matthews has been ensuring > that the in-memory object store, the NoSql and the XML object stores work > with the changes introduced here. However, Kevin Meyer, the primary > maintainer of the SQL object store, has not been able to be as involved in > the project as much as previously, and so no additional testing has been > performed on SQL os with respect to these changes. > > For myself, I'm uncomfortable releasing the SQL object store without some > additional testing. That said, I'm unenthusiastic to do it myself because > my intention is to use the JDO object store going forward. > > I know that the SQL object store and JDO object store don't overlap exactly > in their use cases; one of Kevin's objectives for the SQL os was to have > annotation-free domain models, which most certainly is *not* the case with > a JDO object store. On the other hand, DataNucleus has many more features > than our own SQL os; my suspicion is that newcomers would probably prefer > to use an established ORM rather than a home-grown one. > > Therefore, my proposal is that we retire (perhaps temporarily, perhaps for > good) the SQL object store as of 0.3.1-incubating. > > Thoughts, votes, opinions, please! > > Thx > Dan > > > [ISIS-14] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-14 > [ISIS-131] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-131 > [ISIS-216] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-216 > [ISIS-245] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-245 > [ISIS-248] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-248 >
