Derek, If we add a jpa module, then we'll be supporting two legacy persistence mechanisms (mapper and lift-jpa) once the record stuff is up to snuff. Plus there'll be a ton of confusions over stuff. If you want to do a JPA archetype, that's cool, but I'd strongly prefer not to have more legacy to support.
Thanks, David On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Derek Chen-Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I'd like to go ahead and add in some of the JPA scaffolding as a module > under lift. While we're striving to provide a backend for Record that > integrates with JPA, even that backend will want to use some Scalafied > versions of the JPA classes. On top of that, if people want to use JPA > without Record it would be available to them. In other words, this would be > ancillary to, not a replacement of, Record. The module can be called > "lift-jpa" and the classes in question woulc site under net.liftweb.jpa. Any > objections? > > Derek > > > > -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
