On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
Unfortunately, this is where I will be even more bitchy and say
that I am not willing to wait around for everyone else. My
personal opinion is that any code that isn't going to be commited
within a week or two will just have to be modified to keep up with
what's in the trunk. Obviously there are exceptions to this which
can be coordinated through the community, but I consider those
exceptions and not the default.
These are all valid reasons to possibly delay, but ...
1. I have not heard a single thing from Craig Russell on this list
and still very little status about a JDO backend. In any case,
waiting wouldn't change anything because the JDO classes would
still have to be modified at some point.
2. You haven't even started on the EJB3 implementation yet based on
what you said. Why not reverse things and you wait a little while
until I cleanup the backend so that you have less work to do
whenever you do start an EJB3 implementation.
3. The tagging code would likely require little to no changes based
on what I am proposing. If anything they would only have to remove
some method calls to begin()/commit()/rollback() and possibly tidy
up a couple things in any manager classes they created.
That's a valid point of view and I think it reveals a disconnect
here. I'm thinking that refactoring the back-end to support
transactions (but not to use the begin(), commit() and rollback()
mechanism we have now), would be a very large change. You're
indicating that it is small and would not change the back-end API
much at all. So let's see a proposal that details the changes.
- Dave
