For me, the decision always rests on time and the size of the project.
Using your choices below, here's how I look at it.
Time on my side
^ *choice 2
|
| *choice 1
| *choice 3
|-----------------> Size of Project
(not to scale)
Overall, I think #2 is the "right" way to do things if you have the
time.
However, it's just like any other API, once you learn it the
time factor becomes less of an issue.
Unfortunatley, the current state of Opal right now probably
doesn't make it a viable option.
dave
Stephen Adkins wrote:
>
> 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]
