How would you feel if we used OJB? It also works very well with POJOs, uses a XML mapping repository and is a Jakarta project. I have used it in many projects and its performance and pluggable nature really appeal to me.
Eric, I have never used Hibernate, have you used OJB? If you have used OJB, could you give me comparison of the two projects? Both may be transparent enough to allows to provide a pluggable object persistence mechanism. +1 to OJB as an O/R tool for Jetspeed 2 *===================================* * Scott T Weaver������������������� * * Jakarta Jetspeed Portal Project�� * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *===================================* � > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 7:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: JetSpeed 2: Turbine or Struts? > > I'll just throw in my +1 to hibernate.. Being as it takes POJO objects > and > via a xml mapping service maps them to database tables, it makes it much > easier to deal with TURBINE_USER. But, for a corporate user, you could > just > map to MY_CORPORATE_USER, or just extend the user class and do your own > mapping. > > I am using a Avalon based Hibernate service with T2.3 very successfully. > The > performance is great as well. I committed into T2.3 CVS a howto on > Hibernate and Turbine. > > Eric Pugh > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:46 PM > To: Jetspeed Users List > Subject: Re: JetSpeed 2: Turbine or Struts? > > > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 02:49 PM, Jeff Linwood wrote: > > > Is the security model expected to change between 1.4 and 2.0? > > > > Jeff > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Well I for one like most of the security model in Jetspeed. > So I'd like to keep it in > > One thing I'd like to get rid of is direct coupling to a pre-defined > schema, i.e. TURBINE_USER, but then again, > we have to consider the needs of other users, who like a portal that > works out of the box with a simple database behind. > I know from my experience, the corporate users need separation of > authentication, single-sign-on, ldap support. > But I don't want to forget the open source users who use Jetspeed to > run smaller sites with minimal configuration > > The portlet API gives us mappable user attributes per portal > application,which will be very useful > I think we should provide a default portal application out of the box > using predefined schemas > > -- > David Sean Taylor > Bluesunrise Software > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +01 707 773-4646 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
