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

[Chris G. <CGr...@de...>]

For what it's worth, I'm for it.

C.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:30 AM
> To: Bischof, Rainer
> Cc: ojb
> Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] [Fwd: [New Subproject Proposal]
> ObjectBridge ]
>=20
>=20
> Hi Rainer,
>=20
> thanks for your quick reply and your approval to change the=20
> license on=20
> you contributions!
>=20
> cheers,
> Thomas
>=20
> Bischof, Rainer wrote:
>=20
> > Sure, go for it. The reason is simple: Jakarta =3D> excellent=20
> reputation =3D>
> > more users & developers =3D> better code quality.=20
> > And that's what we always need! The bigger the user base=20
> the faster you
> > stabilize the code of new feature sets.
> >=20
> > The few bits I provided for OJB in the caching area are of=20
> course approved
> > for migration to the new license.
> >=20
> > Rainer
> >=20
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 1. Mai 2002 00:42
> > To: ojb
> > Subject: [OJB-developers] [Fwd: [New Subproject Proposal]=20
> ObjectBridge]
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hi all,
> >=20
> > I had been contacted by Jason van Zyl (from Jakarta Turbine project)
> > some time ago. He was looking for an opensource replacement=20
> for their
> > "homegrown" persistencelayer Torque.
> >=20
> > They made some tests and found OJB to be sufficient for their needs.
> > Jason was impressed by the flexibility and overall=20
> feature-set of OJB
> > and suggested that OJB should become an official jakarta project.
> >=20
> > I met Jason on monday and we had a discussions on the pros=20
> and cons of
> > becomimg a Jakarta project.
> >=20
> > we found several pros:
> > - Jakarta is a very well known OS initiative (even my boss=20
> has heared of
> > it ;-)). It has a great reputation to host first class opensource
> > software. being listed at jakarta would bring even more=20
> momentum behind ojb.
> > - we would attract more developers and contributors.
> > - the BSD style licence will it make more attractive to=20
> contibute back
> > to OJB
> > - users will have less headaches to choose a well reputed Jakarta
> > software than choosing some "insecure" and=20
> "never-heared-of-that-before"
> > stuff from the web.
> > - jakarta provides some support for marketing etc.
> >=20
> >=20
> > We did not find any cons, but we have to care for some details:
> > - Moving to Jakarta would require to change the license on=20
> 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=20
> ones) required
> >    for jakarta projects.
> >=20
> >=20
> > I think that becoming a toplevel jakarta subproject will be=20
> a very good
> > thing for OJB in the long run. So I'm definitely voting to=20
> do this step.
> >=20
> > What do you think? Any objections? Do you see any problems wrt. to
> > licensing or something else?
> >=20
> > below you'll find Jason's proposal to the Jakarta project committee.
> >=20
> > cheers,
> >=20
> > Thomas
> >=20
> > ---
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [New Subproject Proposal] ObjectBridge
> > Date: 29 Apr 2002 07:27:46 -0400
> > From: Jason van Zyl <jv...@ze...>
> > To: tho...@ho...
> >=20
> > Thomas, this is the message I would like to send to the=20
> 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.
> >=20
> > <a href=3D"mailto:gen...@ja...">Jakarta
> > General</a>
> >=20
> > ---
> >=20
> > Hi,
> >=20
> > I would like to propose ObjectBridge
> > (http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/) as a top level subproject of
> > Jakarta.
> >=20
> > For those not familiar with ObjectBridge it is arguably one=20
> of the most
> > advanced persistence layers available, commercial or=20
> otherwise. It is
> > accompanied by an extensive, current documentation set=20
> which includes a
> > quick start guide, tutorials, a FAQ, design documentation=20
> describing how
> > certain features of OJB have been implemented, and=20
> deployment guides.
> >=20
> > The developer community is incredibly strong and currently=20
> consists of
> > 17 inviduals: three of whom are Jakarta committers, and one=20
> of the core
> > Castor developers. So the project has the numbers and has=20
> displayed some
> > collaboration with other projects. There are developers=20
> from the Torque
> > team (the simple table->object persistence tool within the turbine
> > subproject) too so there is obvious interest in OJB. The=20
> current list of
> > developers can be found here:
> >=20
> > http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=3D13647
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > OJB is currently being used in the Jetspeed project, and=20
> integration is
> > well underway in the Turbine project and Thomas Mahler, the=20
> 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=20
> 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.
> >=20
> > I won't go into a complete list of features, but here are=20
> some of the
> > features that set OJB apart:
> >=20
> > o Pluggable APIs: Currently there is the native=20
> PersistenceBroker API, a
> > full ODMG API (which provides enhanced transaction=20
> isolation) and a JDO
> > implementation is in the works. OJB has been designed to=20
> allow different
> > front-end APIs for maximum flexibility. The ODMG API, for=20
> example, is a
> > small set of classes layered over top the core of OJB. The JDO
> > implementation will be very similiar in nature.
> >=20
> > o Pluggable query APIs: currently supported are a criteria based API
> > (AST based mechansism), OQL and SODA. But again they are=20
> pluggable, so
> > for example the query mechanism in Torque could easily be=20
> made to work
> > with OJB.
> >=20
> > These two features alone make OJB attractive as different=20
> 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=20
> going to be
> > one of my first exercises to see how well this mechanism=20
> works. There
> > are many tools like Torque and OJB can be made to work with=20
> 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=20
> and quickly
> > determine that OJB stands in a class of its own, is very=20
> reliable, very
> > flexible and very performant.
> >=20
> > The greatest feature with respect to development is the extensive
> > regression testing features and the testbed. There are=20
> currently 130+
> > test cases and a regression test that compares the=20
> performance of OJB
> > with native JDBC calls.
> >=20
> > A full list of features can be found here:
> >=20
> > http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/features.html
> >=20
> > Currently the license of OJB is LGPL but in discussion with=20
> Thomas he
> > feels that a BSD style license like Apache's is actually a=20
> better model
> > and has no problem with changing the license if the=20
> donation of OJB is
> > accepted by the Jakarta PMC.
> >=20
> > 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,=20
> there are great
> > number of users and we think that OJB would be a fabulous=20
> addition to
> > the set of projects that are currently housed at Jakarta.
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20