Re: [OJB-developers] Re: Visual Tool?

[Thomas M. <tho...@ho...>]

Hi Joachim,

Joa...@tp... wrote:

> Thomas Mahler <tho...@ho...> wrote:
> 
>>Apart from providing mapping functionality (which allow to map existing
>>java classes on existing RDBMS tables) we want to have forward- and
>>reverse engineering features in this workbench :
>>- from a Java Class model to an xml-repository and to RDBMS tables
>>- from tables to classes and to an xml-repository.
>>- from a xml-repository to classes and tables.
>>
> 
> I thought about using XDoclect (http://xdoclet.sf.net/) for the first one.
> XDoclet is basically a Doclet on steroids. This would allow such things as
> specifing details as Java-Doc @tags. The XML2DLL is another step in this
> (although it needs the ability to produce code for several different RDMS),
> so this would finish point 1.
> 

good idea !


> with this available there would be a need for conversion
> - from tables to classes and
> - from xml-repository to classes (which I think is easier).
> 
> For most of these things to be implemented nicely we'd need a final
> DTD/Schema, as it would have to be reworked when the DTD changes (and from
> what I read in the archive, the pending DTD change should be more than a
> simple renaming of tags.)
> 
> It seems that the Discussion about a different DTD stoped without any real
> changes on the core. I for one would prioritize finalizing a clean
> DTD/Schema (mostly because we are just working our way into OJB and I
> dislike having to re-learn stuff).
> 


You are absolutely right. That's why finalizing of the DTD (or switching 
to an XSD) is a todo for the 1.0 release. And mapping tool only for 2.0.

I think the learning curve between the two grammars won't be too big, as 
there are only syntactical changes.

To make the migration smooth for OJB users I want to provide a 
stylesheet to allow automatic translation from old to new format.


> 
>>There have been several discussions on this topic in the forums.
>>There is also an outdated entry in the SourceForge TaskManager sketching
>>my overall idea.
>>
>>There is also a contrib package on the download page
>>(contrib-0.7.343.tgz). This archive contains some experimental code
>>regarding DDL generation.
>>
> 
> it seems somewhat out of date (importing classes that are no longer there).
> 

Yes, it's from about August 2001.


> we need to decide wether we want to use OJB or Kodo JDO rather soon
> (probably tomorrow), and personally I'd prefer OJB.


Even without JDO support?
How will you decide? Did you have a full product evaluation including 
writing simple prototypes? Or just feature comparison.
It would be quite interesting for me to see how Kodo compares to OJB as 
I have never seen it.

 If OJB wins, I'll have
> quite some time to work on OJB.


That would be great!




> btw, why is CVS not mainted? is there any special reason? Are the releases
> the only public updates?
> 


I had big problems with developer dicipline. People checked in code that:
- did not compile
- produced errors in JUnit tests
- imported classes from jars that were not part of the OJB distribution
- did not merge sources but just overwrote changes of others.

That's why I shut down cvs some time ago.

BUT: In the last weeks I have been contacted by several developers who 
urged me to open up CVS again.

Since last week it's up again (but it's not yet documented on the home 
page). The current development project is ojb-1-0.
I will publish a list of simple "rules of conduct" to reduce the above 
mentioned problems.

thanks,

Thomas


> regards
> Joachim Sauer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Objectbridge-developers mailing list
> Obj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers
> 
> 
> 
>