Re: [OJB-developers] [Fwd: [New Subproject Proposal] ObjectBridge]

[Jakob B. <jbr...@ho...>]

hi,

i vote for becoming a jakarta project.

jakob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Mahler" <tho...@ho...>
To: "ojb" <obj...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:42 AM
Subject: [OJB-developers] [Fwd: [New Subproject Proposal] ObjectBridge]


> Hi all,
>
> I had been contacted by Jason van Zyl (from Jakarta Turbine project)
> some time ago. He was looking for an opensource replacement for their
> "homegrown" persistencelayer Torque.
>
> They made some tests and found OJB to be sufficient for their needs.
> Jason was impressed by the flexibility and overall feature-set of OJB
> and suggested that OJB should become an official jakarta project.
>
> I met Jason on monday and we had a discussions on the pros and cons of
> becomimg a Jakarta project.
>
> we found several pros:
> - Jakarta is a very well known OS initiative (even my boss has heared of
> it ;-)). It has a great reputation to host first class opensource
> software. being listed at jakarta would bring even more momentum behind
ojb.
> - we would attract more developers and contributors.
> - the BSD style licence will it make more attractive to contibute back
> to OJB
> - users will have less headaches to choose a well reputed Jakarta
> software than choosing some "insecure" and "never-heared-of-that-before"
> stuff from the web.
> - jakarta provides some support for marketing etc.
>
>
> We did not find any cons, but we have to care for some details:
> - Moving to Jakarta would require to change the license on all code to
> the Apache license. All developers that have contributed to OJB must
> consent on this. If someone does not want his or her stuff under the
> Apache license we would have to rewrite those parts.
> - there are some coding conventions (not very restrictive ones) required
>    for jakarta projects.
>
>
> I think that becoming a toplevel jakarta subproject will be a very good
> thing for OJB in the long run. So I'm definitely voting to do this step.
>
> What do you think? Any objections? Do you see any problems wrt. to
> licensing or something else?
>
> below you'll find Jason's proposal to the Jakarta project committee.
>
> cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
> ---
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [New Subproject Proposal] ObjectBridge
> Date: 29 Apr 2002 07:27:46 -0400
> From: Jason van Zyl <jv...@ze...>
> To: tho...@ho...
>
> Thomas, this is the message I would like to send to the Jakarta list.
> Please feel free to make any changes you wish and when you are happy
> with this I will send it to the general jakarta mailing list.
>
> <a href="mailto:gen...@ja...">Jakarta
> General</a>
>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose ObjectBridge
> (http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/) as a top level subproject of
> Jakarta.
>
> For those not familiar with ObjectBridge it is arguably one of the most
> advanced persistence layers available, commercial or otherwise. It is
> accompanied by an extensive, current documentation set which includes a
> quick start guide, tutorials, a FAQ, design documentation describing how
> certain features of OJB have been implemented, and deployment guides.
>
> The developer community is incredibly strong and currently consists of
> 17 inviduals: three of whom are Jakarta committers, and one of the core
> Castor developers. So the project has the numbers and has displayed some
> collaboration with other projects. There are developers from the Torque
> team (the simple table->object persistence tool within the turbine
> subproject) too so there is obvious interest in OJB. The current list of
> developers can be found here:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=13647
>
> I would also like to note that David Taylor, a Jetspeed fellow, also
> contributed to the internal transaction mechanism. So again, another
> point of interest within Jakarta.
>
> OJB is currently being used in the Jetspeed project, and integration is
> well underway in the Turbine project and Thomas Mahler, the author of
> OJB, uses OJB in conjunction with Struts as part of some of the
> solutions his company provides for clients. Thomas is also a user of
> TopLink, which is the only product that is even remotely comparable with
> OJB, so he is very familiar with both and reports that OJB is on par
> with TopLink with to respect to performance and available features.
>
> I won't go into a complete list of features, but here are some of the
> features that set OJB apart:
>
> o Pluggable APIs: Currently there is the native PersistenceBroker API, a
> full ODMG API (which provides enhanced transaction isolation) and a JDO
> implementation is in the works. OJB has been designed to allow different
> front-end APIs for maximum flexibility. The ODMG API, for example, is a
> small set of classes layered over top the core of OJB. The JDO
> implementation will be very similiar in nature.
>
> o Pluggable query APIs: currently supported are a criteria based API
> (AST based mechansism), OQL and SODA. But again they are pluggable, so
> for example the query mechanism in Torque could easily be made to work
> with OJB.
>
> These two features alone make OJB attractive as different APIs can be
> made so that existing users of different systems can use OJB without
> forcing clients to change code. Trying this with Torque is going to be
> one of my first exercises to see how well this mechanism works. There
> are many tools like Torque and OJB can be made to work with the APIs of
> these projects so that greater collaboration can occur within OJB
> itself. One can take a look at the source and design of OJB and quickly
> determine that OJB stands in a class of its own, is very reliable, very
> flexible and very performant.
>
> The greatest feature with respect to development is the extensive
> regression testing features and the testbed. There are currently 130+
> test cases and a regression test that compares the performance of OJB
> with native JDBC calls.
>
> A full list of features can be found here:
>
> http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/features.html
>
> Currently the license of OJB is LGPL but in discussion with Thomas he
> feels that a BSD style license like Apache's is actually a better model
> and has no problem with changing the license if the donation of OJB is
> accepted by the Jakarta PMC.
>
> This is really a one-of-a-kind project, and is definitely one of the
> cases where an OSS implementation is close, if not better than its
> commercial counterpart. The developer community is keen, there are great
> number of users and we think that OJB would be a fabulous addition to
> the set of projects that are currently housed at Jakarta.
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jv...@ap...
>
> http://tambora.zenplex.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
> the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us:
ban...@so..._______________________________________________
> Objectbridge-developers mailing list
> Obj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers
>