[Objectbridge-developers] AW: [objectbridge - Open Discussion] Bug or feature?

[Mahler T. <tho...@it...>]

Hi Sascha, hi all,

> 
> Read and respond to this message at: 
> http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=214023
> By: koenig
> 
> Hi,
>  
> the new version (ojb-0.5.150.jar or higher) creates a file
> ojb.broker.PesistenceBrokerFactoryConfiguration.properties. 

This file contains config data for the factory Class
PersistenceBrokerFactory (used to obtain PersistenceBroker objects).

> This file is created
> after the first run and sets the attribute 
> 'repositoryFile=repository.xml'.
> This overrides an explicit specification of the repository 
> file via the call
> 'DescriptorRepository.setRepositoryPath(databaseURL)'.
>  
> Setting the repositoryFile attribute in the properties file 
> to the desired file
> fixes the problem.

It's both: bug and feature!
I'm not sure how to deal with this problem.
On the on hand we have the DescriptorRepository.setRepositoryPath() method
to explicitly set the repository.
On the other hand I want to use the PersistenceBrokerFactory to produce
PersistenceBroker objects. This factory is helpful to provide the
application with PersistenceBrokerImpls (in the local scenario) or with
PersistenceBrokerClients used in the client/server scenario.

The client/server scenario drastically changes the programming model for OJB
programmers, as you cannot access all aspects of OJB through direct method
calls within the same VM but only through Reuqests to the
PersistenceBrokerServer.
Currently the PersistenceBroker server can only handle requests that
correspond to the PersistenceBroker interface. I.E. there are no requests
possible that modify the repository, objectcache, etc.

Now my question to everyone working with OJB:
What do you prefer?
1. Allow remote calls that access the metadata repository, cache, etc.? This
would require to include all these calls being added to the Request protocol
(and to implement them in the RequestHandler)
2. Expose only the PersistenceBroker API as suggested by implementation.
This will keep the design clear. But it will be impossible to make explicit
changes to the metadata etc.

Personally I vote for option two. But I'd like to hear your suggestions, as
I don't know if you are already building applications that rely on changes
to metadata etc.

<thomas/>

>  
> Sascha
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________
> Sascha A. Koenig
> CCS-1, MS T006
> Computer and Computational Sciences
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> Los Alamos, NM 87545
>  
> phone: +1 (505) 663-5217  cellular: +1 (505) 670-4643
> fax: +1 (505) 665-4939  http://www.OpenEMed.org
>  
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor 
> this forum.
> To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge and visit: 
> http://sourceforge.net/forum/monitor.php?forum_id=43066
>