On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 18:36, Brian McCallister wrote: > Looking at XDoclet it seems that the project accumulates modules and > seems to be interested in providing a repository of them, hence my > "more of an xdoclet tool than OJB tool."
On the other hand, take a look at how up to date they are. The Websphere module is woefully behind since Ara stopped using it, Weblogic is stuck at v7.0 until one of us gets time to go through the patches that have been submitted, Resin/JRun/Pramati/etc. have hardly been touched since they were originally submitted; mainly because most of the developers don't use them, and haven't had the time to get to grips with them well enough to do the modules justice. That's why for version 2.0 we hope "vendors" (including OS projects like OJB) will maintain their own modules - they know their own products a lot better than we do. In fact, we positively encourage them to do so, while we concentrate on the basic framework etc. Where vendors (or their own user communities) are unwilling to do it, and if there's sufficient demand (and volunteers), there's always the new xdoclet-plugins project on SourceForge. But you may not (indeed, probably won't) find all the current developers there. > I am perfectly willing to be convinced that it belongs in the OJB > repository, but was speaking from the perspective of looking at the big > list of xdoclet modules hosted by xdoclet. If the xdoclet team does not > want to include it then I'll put it into the OJB repository =) It isn't > a big deal in that sense. That's entirely up to you. Personally (though I can't speak for the other developers), for 1.2-based modules, I've nothing against adding it in with all the other modules - there's plenty of others in there already which are probably used less ;-) On the other hand, the fact you're having to chase up about getting it added is probably a fair indication of how well maintained/supported it's likely to be in the future :-( Unless, of course, you're volunteering to maintain it? For a 2.0-based module, however, I'd definitely recommend you host it in the OJB repository. Andrew. > Thank you again for xdoclet! It's a rocking tool. > > -Brian > > On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 01:23 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > > How is it *more* of an XDoclet tool than an OJB one? > > > > This is a classic dilemma that Ant and XDoclet have shared for a > > while. Are there any XDoclet committers that use OJB? If not, then > > it doesn't really make sense for us to put it under our control and > > maintain. > > > > I think it really makes more sense housed under OJB personally. It's > > tough to be consistent though, as XDoclet houses several modules that > > also really belong to vendors and other projects as well. > > > > Erik > > > > On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 11:36 AM, Brian McCallister wrote: > > > >> I am not sure if there is a history of this on the list, but is there > >> any reason *not* to check in Thomas Dudziak's OJB module to the > >> xdoclet repository? It works great, is easy to use, and is definitely > >> a thumbs-up tool from the OJB committers. I would very much like to > >> see it here as it is much more of an xdoclet tool than OJB tool. > >> Thomas has supported it for a while on ojb-user and it is actively > >> maintained by him. > >> > >> -Brian ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/ _______________________________________________ xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
