On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:25, Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christophe: I feel it is high time to update the documentation (Tutorial) > may be on a war footing :-) . I will put in whatever time I could spare to > write tutorial content. Any other volunteers? Thanks Boni > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christophe Lombart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 November 2008 16:43 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping) > > OCM provides annotation support and version 1.5 is simpler than version > 1.4. > > Anyway, let us know what is the complexity in OCM. We can work on it. It is > always positive to receive comments on the work done. > > thanks, > Christophe > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:58, Fabián Mandelbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > 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? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
