> 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.
;-) I understand where you are at. ;-)
> 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.
Yes. Remeber that Village is just a wrapper around JDBC.
> 2. Use the OPaL, which seems to be much more sophisticated
> but which I understand is incomplete. OPaL does not use
> village.
OPaL should use Village IMHO. ;-)
> 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
What are the requirements for your application? How experienced are you
with databases? etc...
There is a spectrum of approachs with JDBC on one end and stuff like OPaL
on the other.
In Jyve, I needed to get something out ASAP so I went with what was
fastest to implement while giving up a bit on a nice persistence layer.
With other applications, we have used the Peer methodology. It works quite
well, but takes more time and thought to implement.
OPaL is unfortunately not done yet. You could help complete it and then
use that.
There really is no one "right" way to do this stuff...
-jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
