Re: Light Weight JDO Implementation?

2003-01-21 Thread Thomas Mahler
Hi again Robert,

Robert Simmons wrote:

Interesting your replies. I actually looked at OJB in consideration of a
book I am working on in which I use JDO. What I donate want to have to do is
allot of complex configuration and initialization to get it to work.
Although I am interested in writing JDO code, at this moment I'm a pure
user. In the end, I opted to use a commercial product that I could basically
just drop into my JBoss directory and have it magically go. I had to edit
one properties file and I was off and running.


with OJB you'll have to deploy some jars and two config files. Sounds 
not that difficult for me.

So with OJB there are two possibilities.
1) It has this ability but the documentation is cryptic enough to not be
easily locatable.
2) It doesn't have this ability.


Mhh, our latest release contains a tutorial JDO application. It can be 
set up with two simple steps.
The setup is documented in the tutorial4.html document.

Other issues:
A) When I deploy a JDO broker, I want it to use JCA to connect to my
application server. I don't believe OJB does this.


OJB *does* support JCA, JTA, JNDI, EJB and every other relevant J2EE spec.


B) I donate believe OJB is fully JDO spec compliant (correct me if I'm
wrong)


As the OjbStore Storemanager is implemented as a plugin to the JDO 
reference implementation, the JDO compliance is maintained by the JDO 
RI, not by OJB! AFAIK the JDO RI is fully JDO 1.0 compliant.

C) When I deploy the broker, I donate want to muddle my classloader up with
5 classes I will never use. If there was a way to build OJB stripped of
all the ODMG mapping stuff, it might be more appealing to me.


The ODMG layer consists of 59 classes. If you don't access those classes 
a good classloader won't load them.
But it's of course possible to remove the org.apache.ojb.odmg packages 
from the OJB jar!


Currently as it is, OJB is not going to attract the freewheeling JDO
*USER*.
This is where the gravy lies. Without the user base, there
is no product. Either they need to change the documentation or change the
product.


Ojb has a large and growing user base. OJB is a mature product. A full 
JDO implementation is in the scope of the 2.0 release.
Ojb already provides a fully compliant JDO solution with JDO RI plugin.
This solution is documented and can be easily configured.


Until I finish my book, however, I am a pure end user and cannot be
concerned with the complexities of layering and architecture. I want to
configure the broker, run an ant task to enhance the classes and sprint off
to the races.


After reading through the first section of my JDO tutorial you will see 
how this can be done with OJB.

IMO further questions regarding OJB should be discussed on the OJB user 
mailing list.

cheers,
Thomas

-- Derisor









- Original Message -
From: Mahler Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Jakarta General List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: AW: Light Weight JDO Implementation?


Hi Robert,



Greetings,

I was wondering if there was a JDO implementation in the
planning stages.



OJB provides a plugin to the JDO reference implementation. By using this
plugin you can write JDO compliant applications running against the OJB O/R
mapping.
See here for a sample application:
http://jakarta.apache.org/ojb/tutorial4.html.

The OJB projects is also planning to provide a clean room JDO transaction
manager on top of the existing OJB layers.



I know, you are probably going to answer, Go look at OJB.
However, to face reality, OJB was started and an OMG data
mapping implementation.



That's not correct. OJB started to write a generic O/R mapping tool that
provides multiple personalities or APIs.



It is far too big to be warped into a
world class JDO implementation.



Not correct. Have a look at my OjbStore Plugin. It consists of 5 classes and
1 exception!
And still provides full JDO functionality (by pluggin into JDORI)!



The code volume alone is
rather staggering.



not correct. It has a cleanly designed layering. It is designed to build
high level transaction managers like ODMG and JDO on top of its core API.
It was build with JDO in mind! The existing ODMG layer is in fact quite
thin!



Hence the reason I suggest that Jakarta
start a project into developing a clean, fast, and
über-compliant JDO implementation.



Id rather suggest to join efforts with the OJB team. We have even started to
talk with SUNs JDO team to join efforts...

cheers,
Thomas



Thoughts?

-- Derisor





--
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]








--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?

2002-05-04 Thread Thomas Mahler

Hi Geir,

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

 On 5/3/02 6:01 PM, Thomas Mahler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip

I think db.apache.org is a great idea. And we will be happy to be part
of it !

 
 I was going to write to you to discuss the idea, but it's better to discuss
 here.  I am glad to see that you are interested in the idea.
 
 Have you read the list messages regarding this?
 


Yes, i folowed the complete thread.


  db.apache.org is the working name for a new, db (et al) oriented apache
 subproject.  There are no guarantees that it would be approved by the board.
 Failure to create such an entity means that OJB would become a jakarta
 subproject, so there doesn't appear to be a downside for OJB to pursue this
 if interested.
 


I agree. So we should give it a try!


I'm on a vacation for a week and will be offline till next weekend, 
so I won't be able to participate in further discussions until then.


best regards,
Thomas




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?

2002-05-03 Thread Thomas Mahler

Hi,

Martin Poeschl wrote:

snip 
 there are only 2 apache developers on the ojb developer list (Jason van Zyl and me)
 i think it would be good to give the other ojb developers some time to see how 
 everything works here  .
 


I agree. We (the OJB developers) will need some time to get used to our 
new home.

OJB has a wide scope (pluggable frontend APIs like JDO and ODMG, JTA and 
JCA integration into J2EE app-servers, pluggable backends adaptors for 
RDBMS, ODBMS, LDAP, XML, etc.).
You might call it an object persistence integration platform.

That's why I believe it is a worthy candidate for db.apache.org.

I think db.apache.org is a great idea. And we will be happy to be part 
of it !


Thomas

(OJB initial author)




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]