So we can easily add the map based store on rdbms we talked about (single big table).
Regarding the legacy store - I'll handle that. Perhaps we can even have it mimick a key-value map approach. That would be interesting. Michael On Tue, April 7, 2009 11:39, Rickard Öberg wrote: > Hey, > > > The persistence refactoring is almost done, and enough testcases are > working that I would like to commit. But, I think I've made a couple of > newbie Git-mistakes that makes it a bit tricky. The qi4j-core changes are > done in a separate branch, but everything else (including EntityStores) is > in HEAD. And some of them have moved to sandbox since I started changing > them. > > So, I suppose the best thing to do now is to release v0.7, and then do a > "pull" on everything, copy over the entitystore changes to sandbox where > appropriate, and then merge my branch to head and commit the whole thing. > Does that sound about right? > > > In terms of testcases, a surprising amount of them are still working, > but some stores are in a pretty bad shape, in particular Neo4j and Legacy, > both of which needs an overhaul. They were a bit messy to begin with and > needed attention anyway though... > > I should also mention that for the map-based ones I have factored out > all map access to a private mixin type so that it is even easier to > integrate map-based stores (I know Stephan was working on something and I > want to do BerkeleyDB myself). Now there's really little code needed to > implement an entitystore if you have a Map-based backend store. > > /Rickard > > > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev > > -- _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
