This sounds like a very sensible approach to me.
I'd actually like to get a little more clarification about what is
acceptable in terms of removing the hard dependency on Hibernate. I
remember that being mentioned once or twice before, but I'm not sure
there was ever any solid clarification.
So if we make it possible to replace Hibernate does that mean we can
then still opt to use Hibernate as the default since it's only a soft
dependency? If we have an alternative backend in the sandbox is that
enough to allow use to continue using Hibernate as the default?
can anyone offer more info on exactly what options we have with regards
to keeping Hibernate as a soft dependency?
-- Allen
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I would not suggest we remove the Hibernate implementation from Roller.
That should not stop us from adding a datamapper persistence
implementation, thereby removing the hard dependency on Hibernate and
satisfying the Apache folks.
Craig
On Aug 15, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Jeff Blattman wrote:
given that JDO's future is unclear* (at best) and JPA is unproven*
(are there any robust production tested implementations yet?), i would
think that a "wait and see" approach would be most prudent.
* = craig would know much better than i, i think
i think that all things being equal it'd be better to not have the
hibernate dependency, but it doesn't seem like now would be the right
time to switch. if you're going to do this, make sure you won't be
contemplating it again in 6 months.
now, if folks want to put start putting things together in sandbox, by
all means ... maybe by the time 3.x is ready, things will be clear
Allen Gilliland wrote:
So maybe it's time to ask the question more squarely ... who wants to
replace Hibernate as our persistence implementation?
-- Allen
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
