The idea I had here was to have support for 3 types of data : - XML (as Sebastien suggested) - Pojo (refactoring impl-jpa) - SDO (somewhat bringing back the initial revision of impl-data)
In a initial step, we would have 3 implementation types (impl-data-xml, impl-data-pojo and impl-data-sdo). I was thinking on different implementation types as the interfaces, initially, would have different requirements. In a latter stage, then we could identify the similarities and see how we could have one implementation-type that would support multiple types... Thoughts ? On Dec 13, 2007 4:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Douglas Leite wrote: > > Luciano has told me about the creation of many kinds of implementation-data, > > like impl-data-xml, impl-data-pojo, impl-data-jpa. > > > > "many kinds of implementation-data" sounds scary. > > As an application developer why would I have to pick different > implementation types for components that wrap data access? > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
