Boni,
I apologize, it seems it's been a long time since I don't take a
look at OCM and/or OCM has progressed a lot lately.
I didn't remember it was you I suggested the wrapper approach, sad
to hear it didn't work ;-(
Thanks for your clarifications.
Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
> OCM supports annotations and XML mappings. And it supports custom converters
> for simple types, Beans and collections. The only disagreement I have with
> the design is the need to carry 'path' as part of the bean that I want to
> persist.
>
> Btw: I was the one to whom Fabian had suggested the wrapper class approach.
> Unfortunately I was not able to cheat persistence layer to think that
> something is persistable only because it came wrapped in a 'Serializable'
> blanket. So that wrapper solution does not really work with JCROM. : Just FYI
>
> Thanks
> boni
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fabián Mandelbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 November 2008 15:28
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
>
> Hello Boni,
>
> even this answer wasn't directed to me, please let me answer to it.
>
> I believe that the best/superior/whatever tool is the one that does
> the job the way you want it.
>
> OCM is the most complete, official, sofisticated,
> add_more_adjectives_here, JCR OR mapping solution, but JCROM looks far
> simpler and is based on annotations, which is a great thing for people
> coming from other OR mapping solutions (like Hibernate) because it makes
> things more "familiar", which is always a big plus for development.
>
> Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
>
>> Fabain : Runtime every generic will be an Object and ONLY of type
>> java.lang.Object. It is not a problem with jackrabbit-ocm but a result of
>> the way generics is implemented in Java. However you will be able to map
>> out the object exactly the say you want to map it our by using the right
>> converter (Bean Converter or Collection Converter) available with
>> jackrabbit-ocm. If none is fitting your requirements writing one is very
>> simple too. Why don't you lay out your exact requirements I will be able to
>> help you with it. I am in the thick of a jackrabbit-ocm based persistent
>> storage implementation and I am effextively using a generic dao
>> (AbstractDao<T>) just like the one JCROM has. There is absolutely any doubt
>> that jackrabbit-ocm is superior to any JCR OR mapping tools available
>> currently.
>>
>> Thanks
>> boni
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 10 November 2008 21:18
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
>>
>>
>> Hello Fabián,
>>
>> Your example is a good example. It is exactly one of my problems.
>> the other things in JACROM I could not define a filed with java.lang.Object
>> type in my class. Beacause I would like to assign an object/s of any type
>> (for example String, File,...) during run time to it.
>> I have also used native Jackrabbit OCM and I couldn't solve my problem with
>> it.
>> So I'm looking for anather OCM for transaction with Jackrabbit.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Fard
>>
>>
>> Fabián Mandelbaum wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fard escribió:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello there,
>>>>
>>>> I am looking for an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping). I have used
>>>> JCROM and I found it is useful, but recently I found it is not a good
>>>> remedy
>>>> for java generic programming.
>>>>
>>>> I really really appreciate any help.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Fard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hello Fard,
>>>
>>> what do you mean with "Java Generic Programming"? Things like:
>>>
>>> public class SomeDAO<T>
>>>
>>> for example?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
