Hi Tim,
Tim O'Brien wrote:
Thomas,
Would it be valid to assume that the most mature mechanism of the
three access mechanisms is the PersistenceBroker?
No, PB and ODMG implementation are both equally mature. I would regard
the ODMG layer even more mature, as it is changed much less often.
In other words, if I
were looking for the most stable of the three options, would I choose to
code to the PersistenceBroker?
No.
I'd rather choose between ODMG and PB according to the requirements I face.
If you need a full fledged Object level transaction monitor use ODMG.
If a lean persistence service layer is sufficient go for PB.
(This is also discussed in the faq.html)
cheers,
Thomas
Tim
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Thomas Mahler wrote:
Hi Brian,
Brian McCallister wrote:
Hello all.
Am investigating using JDO for persistance in a fairly major application
and am A) partial to Jakarta, and B) partial to open source in
general... so, am looking to figure out the current state of OJB's JDO
implementation (and probably offer my help if it may be needed in
bringing it up to deployability is feasible in near future).
All help is welcome!
The FAQ suggests not using it right now, does that still hold?
Yes!
If so,
why not,
We are behind schedule. Ok we have no real schedule, but I admit we are
really behind a bit.
The maintainance work on the OJB core parts takes much time. More than I
ever estimated.
and what is the state of the implementation?
We have started the work on an abstraction layer OTM, that is intended
as the core of our ODMG and JDO personalities.
Thus there is currently no visible progress.
cheers,
Thomas
Thanks,
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
