Hi David, Until the JDO implementation within OJB becomes release-quality, I would like to wait. However, changing from PB or ODMG to JDO within OJB is very straight forward since you only have to change the logic in the classes but the mappings in the repository stay the same. Even with that said, I'm really excited about using the JDO layer in OJB.
> My vote is +1 on using OJB over Torque in the next version, but I believe > we > shouldn't make this change in 1.4 since it may break a lot of applications > based on 1.4. Do you mean breaking user-apps based on Jetspeed or the actual base Jetspeed itself? I thought the abstraction through the new security implementation prevented just this type of situation. Could we offer the option of an OJB-based impl. along side the Torque one? Maybe, get people used to the OJB stuff early-on by choice and not by force. We could also add an ant task to build a .war with OJB support and leave the default war option to Torque. Am I making any sense or am I just babbling like an idiot ;) Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:10 AM > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > Subject: RE: OJB based security service, any thoughts? > > My vote is +1 on using OJB over Torque in the next version, but I believe > we > shouldn't make this change in 1.4 since it may break a lot of applications > based on 1.4. > > I started writing a Registry service a while back with OJB, its in the cvs > with ojb-0.7.343.jar > Have you considered JDO + OJB? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 01 October 2002 14:03 > > To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' > > Subject: OJB based security service, any thoughts? > > > > > > Has anyone entertained the idea of using OJB as an > > alternative to Torque as the underlying OM framework for the > > Jetspeed Security Framework? I have one production > > application and about 4 portlets using OJB 0.9.5 and am quite > > happy with it. I would be more than happy work on it, time > > and schedule permitting. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Scott > > > > > BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically > stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do > not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the > BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will > signify your consent to this. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
