Re: [Bodington-developers] hibernate ~ spring ~ common core

[Selwyn L. <sel...@ph...>]

sorry, the question was... did the topic get aired?

still I'll try and deal with your concern about innovation and explain 
our perspective a little more with some kind of illustration in text :)


*innovation

putting a lid on innovation would be the last thing on our mind [please 
be assured of that]
on the contrary a common core data structure provides a license to 
innovate sensibly.
regards application innovation you can have as many application 
databases as you like, common is just that 'common'.

*common core

the proposal is so that a concept such as Tetra has a core on which to 
build,

in this integrated model

user application [presentation layer]
components & services layer
application data layer
common data layer

or in a little more detail


     my integrated portal thingy me bob [bod 2]
                              |
     bod tetra   |  sakai tetra  |  ioportal tetra
        |                     |                        |
     bod_db      sakai_db         ioportal_db
        |                     |                        |
                              |
                    common core

*schema
If I was going to propose a common core to begin with then it might be 
based on LDAP / Enterprise hybrid but I'm not proposing the schema, just 
asking if the topic was aired.
perhaps the LDAP schema is to generic for us and we need to extend that 
to cope with other common considerations in e-learning.
but common core all about calling a spade a spade and reuseability.

Cheers

Sel







Peter Crowther wrote:

>>From: Selwyn Lloyd
>>did the idea of a common schema for an abstraction layer get aired?
>>
>>we figured that a common core gives us more ways to integrate 
>>different 
>>developemnt models, i.e. spring, struts, portlets, web services and 
>>other models can sit side by side if we had a common storage model
>>for a core e-learning schema
>>    
>>
>
>Intuitively this feels even harder to standardise than common
>interchange formats, and feels like standardisation at the wrong level
>to boot.  People expect interchange formats to be lossy, and there can
>be more than one of them for a given area.  By contrast, multiple
>storage models are beggars to integrate.
>
>What would you propose to standardise?  How would you propose to let
>developers innovate in the presence of a common core (or is one of the
>goals to put a lid on unwanted innovation)?  Would you expect a
>table-based or hierarchical storage model?
>
>		- Peter
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Bodington-developers mailing list
>Bod...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Selwyn Lloyd
Phosphorix
tel: 07979240124
irc://irc.ionode.org
channel: #ionode
web: http://www.phosphorix.co.uk 
forum: http://forum.ionetwork.ac.uk