« Return to Thread: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
Re: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
by cbeams
::
Rate this Message:
Not to belabor the point here, but reading on I see the following in
section 2.2 ("Rationale"):
> There is no existing Java platform specification that proposes a
> standard architecture for storing the
> state of Java objects persistently in transactional datastores.
Not exactly the case anymore. I suggest this passage be updated (or
eliminated) in light of JPA. Perhaps the statement could be amended
to point out that there is no existing spec that proposes a
*datastore-agnostic* standard architecture for persistence. This is
probably the chief conceptual discriminator between JDO and JPA
today. No flame bait intended on this thread, btw; I'm a JDO user
and advocate. I mention these things because I believe it's in JDO's
best interest to acknowledge JPA wherever appropriate, and
distinguish itself and it's raison d'être wherever it can.
- Chris
On Aug 4, 2007, at 3:49 PM, cbeams wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> The introduction's preamble reads:
>
>> Currently, aside from JDO, there are three Java standards for
>> storing Java data persistently: serial-
>> ization, JDBC, and Enterprise JavaBeans. Serialization preserves
>> relationships among a graph of
>> Java objects, but does not support sharing among multiple users.
>> JDBC requires the user to explic-
>> itly manage the values of fields and map them into relational
>> database tables. Enterprise JavaBeans
>> require a container in which to run.
>
> There's no mention of JPA here; I imagine there should be, as it is
> indeed a fourth standard. Perhaps it's out of scope or
> inappropriate, but it would be nice to see the spec 'officially'
> address the relationship between these two increasingly similar
> standards.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Chris Beams
>
>
>> From: Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@...>
>> Date: August 3, 2007 7:04:52 PM PDT
>> To: Apache JDO project <jdo-dev@...>, JDO Expert Group
>> <jdo-experts-ext@...>
>> Subject: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
>>
>>
>> at http://db.apache.org/jdo/documentation.html
>>
>> Check it out, and send comments...
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@...
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
section 2.2 ("Rationale"):
> There is no existing Java platform specification that proposes a
> standard architecture for storing the
> state of Java objects persistently in transactional datastores.
Not exactly the case anymore. I suggest this passage be updated (or
eliminated) in light of JPA. Perhaps the statement could be amended
to point out that there is no existing spec that proposes a
*datastore-agnostic* standard architecture for persistence. This is
probably the chief conceptual discriminator between JDO and JPA
today. No flame bait intended on this thread, btw; I'm a JDO user
and advocate. I mention these things because I believe it's in JDO's
best interest to acknowledge JPA wherever appropriate, and
distinguish itself and it's raison d'être wherever it can.
- Chris
On Aug 4, 2007, at 3:49 PM, cbeams wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> The introduction's preamble reads:
>
>> Currently, aside from JDO, there are three Java standards for
>> storing Java data persistently: serial-
>> ization, JDBC, and Enterprise JavaBeans. Serialization preserves
>> relationships among a graph of
>> Java objects, but does not support sharing among multiple users.
>> JDBC requires the user to explic-
>> itly manage the values of fields and map them into relational
>> database tables. Enterprise JavaBeans
>> require a container in which to run.
>
> There's no mention of JPA here; I imagine there should be, as it is
> indeed a fourth standard. Perhaps it's out of scope or
> inappropriate, but it would be nice to see the spec 'officially'
> address the relationship between these two increasingly similar
> standards.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Chris Beams
>
>
>> From: Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@...>
>> Date: August 3, 2007 7:04:52 PM PDT
>> To: Apache JDO project <jdo-dev@...>, JDO Expert Group
>> <jdo-experts-ext@...>
>> Subject: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
>>
>>
>> at http://db.apache.org/jdo/documentation.html
>>
>> Check it out, and send comments...
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@...
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
« Return to Thread: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
