Re: [Objectbridge-jdo-dev] Hi from new list subscriber

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

Hi Michael,

Michael Vorburger wrote:
> Hello objectbridge-jdo-dev'ers!
> 
> just subscribed to this list, and thought I would drop a note.  Got
> mostly attracted by the
> http://jakarta.apache.org/ojb/jdo/jdo-proposal.html page....  So how
> are things, in regards to what's described there?
> 

We followed the general idea of this proposal.
There is now a rapid JDO prototype, that demonstrate some basic features.
Currently we are discussing the details of the OTM design. Matthew Baird 
assembled a document that will be the base for of our next 
implementation steps:
http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?lis...@ja...&msgNo=289



> Even though I have gone through a (probably somewhat simpler than OJB)
> persistence layer developed in-house; I am not sure if I can put in
> significant development time myself at this point, simply because of
> the time, other than little helper code e.g. some .jdo XML
> unmarshalling, other helpers and tools, or something like that.
> 
> However, I have been involved with JDO since relatively early on, am
> quite familiar with the spec. and API, and believe to have some notion
> of the current landscape in terms of existing implementations and
> stuff, and would be happy in assisting this project this way, if I
> can.  What do you need most?   It may be a bit early for OJB JDO
> testing? ;-)
>

Right, the prototype won't pass the JDO TCK.

> 
> May I ask some questions that popped through my mind?
> 
> * How widely used is the existing ODMG API-based OJB?

I don't have any exact figures. But I know of several large projects 
that use it in production. There are many ex-TopLink customers that use 
OJB...

> * How mature is it?  Used... in...
> 

There have only been minor changes to the ODMG layer since the OJB 0.5 
release. Apart from some issues with the OQL parser I don't think there 
are any problems with it. (The OQL parser is based on the official oql.g 
grammar from the ODMG website. This grammar is not perfect wrt. to the 
ODMG spec....)

> * SF vs. Jakarta... the jdo-proposal.html page on Jakarta still
> encourages to subscribe to
> obj...@li...... but there seem to be a
> Jakarta hosted list(s) as well, so am I on the wrong mailing list
> here?

Right, better use the Jakarta lists. the mentioning of the old list is a 
"bug"...

> 
> * For general curiosity: How does one (OBJ) get onto Jakarta, anyway?
> 

Oh, it works according to the Hollywood principle: "Don't call us, we 
call you". :-)
I have been contacted by Jason van Zyl. He asked me if we'd like to 
Jakarta...

> * Noticed "JDO prototype and sample application." for 0.9... so there
> is working JDO-API compliant code out there, already?  

Right. I would not claim it to be JDO compliant. But it allows to run 
some simple examples...

> Just curious,
> because the jdo-proposal.html seems to propose a refactoring for a
> 2.0... far out in time?  Very roughly, what sort of timeframe do
> people have in mind here?
> 

Given the current pace I think we could have a beta quality JDO system 
at the end of the year. Maybe even earlier.

cheers,
Thomas


> Regards,
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Objectbridge-jdo-dev mailing list
> Obj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-jdo-dev
> 
> 
>