If you have time, I would suggest you use OPaL, that way it will get
finished. I recently tried (3) for an application, but I could not stand it
and reorganized into (1).
If your application does not have much of an object model and works well
just reporting database fields, go with (3) it will be the fastest.
If your om is on the order of 10 classes and number of tables is similar in
size I would suggest (1). For an application that involves much more and/or
involves persisitence of inherited objects. You are probably better of
working on getting OPaL finished as you are designing your om..
John McNally
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:21 AM
Subject: What persistence framework recommended for Turbine apps?
> Hi,
>
> I have been slowly coming up to speed on Turbine.
> I am now designing my own application and am searching for the right
> persistence design approach.
>
> There seem to be three options suggested by existing Turbine code.
>
> 1. Use the Peer approach used within org.apache.turbine.om.*
> This uses village.
> 2. Use the OPaL, which seems to be much more sophisticated
> but which I understand is incomplete. OPaL does not use
> village.
> 3. Use village and JDBC without having a Peer for each
> major object. This seems to be the approach taken by Jyve.
>
> Any recommendations?
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
