Hi Tom,I think we might have a better chance at unifying these disparate code bases if they are all in one place. And I think that DB might be just the place.
For the record, the Apache JDO project has no ORM engine. It has the testing infrastructure for ORM and it has the JDO specification API, but no implementation. So having a good JDO implementation is a project (like your OBJ/EJB3 project) that hasn't begun, and we're looking for a good base to start from.
In particular, each of the persistence APIs has a front end (user API), a back end (the actual object-to-SQL grind), integration (app servers, web servers, Java SE), and tools. A hundred flowers have bloomed and I'd like to see more synergy.
That's why I like the idea of Cayenne in DB and would also like to see OpenJPA in DB as well.
Craig On Mar 8, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Mhmm, I have one major problem with this (as much as with Cayenne), and this is that IMO we (will) have too much ORM engines in Apache (with JPA and Cayenne it will be 6 or 7 ?) with little to no cooperation (esp. on the code level) between the ones already here. So in short, there is no focus and much duplication. Not to mention that OJB is planning to add EJB3 persistence (as it happens, done by me - I was going to start in May). That being said, I think there is a big case for bringing it to DB (with much the same arguments as for Cayenne) and for starting a joint effort of unifying these projects as much as this is possible/useful (e.g. it does only make sense so much to unify JDO and OpenJPA/EJB3). cheers, Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
