-- Ilkka
Clute, Andrew wrote:
From what I can tell at this point, providing a drop-in-replacement for proxies is extremely doable -- there should be no significant change. Provided that is the case, I would like to get a consensus that it would be acceptable to introduce that functional swap in the 1.0.X line (post 1.0.2).
Part of my motivation is that I would like to get this introduced into *my* current production system, and I don't want to deviate to far from official releases of OJB (I have maintained separate versions a couple of times, but it is a pain).
At the same time, a new proxy system can be introduced into HEAD that incorporates a plug-in style model. Get the best of both worlds: an immediate scratch to the itch (or is that itch to a scratch) and a long-term clean, flexible solution.
Assuming this is acceptable, does anyone have comments or suggestions on the changes I proposed to the metadata to support this?
-Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Kal�n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:52 PM
To: OJB Developers List
Subject: Re: Feature Proposal: Bytecode generated Proxies
I agree with Tom that this work is best done in HEAD if it's not a drop-in-replacement for 1.0.2, however it might be a bit of overworking it to provide a pluggable approach in 1.0.x-branch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
