Well, opposite to you I prefer the annotations but it's good if there is flexibility to support both variants.. ;)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Will Scheidegger [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 2 november 2010 7:42 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OCM or JCROM > > Thanks for the reply. Good to know that one can get JCR to work with > Jackrabbit 2 - although a release instead of patches would be even > better ;-) > > Concerning JCROM: I'm not a big fan of annotation based solutions. We > are using JCR for the Magnolia CMS and extended it to the degree where > we can have the mapping configuration in Magnolia's configuration > repository itself. This allows the user for instance to add a mapping > during runtime without having to recompile and redeploy everything - if > the POJO was ready for the additional field of course. > > -wil > > On 02.11.2010, at 07:33, Sverker Abrahamsson wrote: > > > Hi, > > There are patched in jiira for jackrabbit ocm support on jackrabbit > 2. I > > haven't used it so much yet but it seems to be working. > > > > Then there is another question which is best to use, jackrabbit OCM > or > > JCROM. Maybe joining efforts could be a good idea? > > Best regards > > Sverker > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Will Scheidegger [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: den 1 november 2010 11:08 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: OCM or JCROM > >> > >> Good question! Would be interested in that too. > >> Somebody once said something that he/she ported OCM to Jackrabbit 2 > but > >> I think these efforts are lost in the meantime. > >> > >> -will > >> > >> On 01.11.2010, at 22:17, sam lee wrote: > >> > >>> Hey, > >>> > >>> Why is OCM (http://jackrabbit.apache.org/object-content- > mapping.html) > >> not > >>> included in version 2.1.1? > >>> > >>> Should I use JCROM (http://code.google.com/p/jcrom) instead? > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> Sam > > > >
