On Jul 17, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
<giant snip>

- Jetspeed "light" (no need for database persistence and much simplified page/site management)
- I think that moving to jpa for persistence would be a good idea. I think moving to java(ee)5 is reasonable too, but it may be possible to use openjpa in a 1.4 environment (I'm not sure). At least if we can move to java 5 I think I can help with this.
With the planned support for JSR-286 Portlet API 2.0, which requires Java 5 too, leaving 1.4 behind is one of the consequences.

About moving to JPA: yes. I'm all for replacing OJB with either JPA or JDO2. Personally, I think JPA still has a long way to go before it can match JDO2, and JPA has some severe limitations too.
That could well be the case, and I've heard that from other people, but jpa has some big advantages in terms of availability -- there are openjpa, toplink, and hibernate all for free whereas AFAIK the only free jdo2 implementation is the RI. (IMO the reason jpa is here is that there weren't any good, available, community backed, free jdo1 implementations, opening the door to hibernate...)

If we can be sure enough JPA can cover our needs though and be performant too, its OK with me.
I'd be rather surprised if moving to openjpa didn't speed things up :-)
But please note: what I proposed above for a Jetspeed "light" actually is (also to) separate out database persistence altogether by factoring out those dependencies from our component model so we can also provide an memory or xml/file based storage model.
I'll try not to get ahead of myself here :-). That seems like a good idea but lets also be careful of introducing more layers than we need.

I wonder if we can have some pojo data objects, with both jpa and jaxb annotations, then use the classes with jpa for db storage and jaxb for xml storage.... and nothing for in memory...

thanks
david jencks




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to