On 2/28/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMO, this looks like a very worthwhile proposal, but I > > would consider that this may likely be best under > > db first, with movement to TLP sometime after that, > > at least at this stage. I am also curious about the > > comparison between this and Torque, and if you > > have any thoughts about that, regarding any potential > > impacts or conflicts within the ASF space. > > Can't compare us with Torque, as I am unfamiliar with it. From what I > know we are closer to OJB and JDO rather than Torque (but I can be > wrong on that). I don't see a conflict with either of the three. We > just provide another way of doing object persistence, kind of like > Struts, Tapestry and MyFaces provide three different ways to > implement Java web layer.
the comments over in DBland seem quite positive: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-general/200602.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-general/200602.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] We viewed DB as one logical possibility (so we first presented a > proposal to DB PMC). But there are arguments from both Cayenne and DB > communities that make us think that TLP is a better option: > > 1. Umbrella argument [that I don't fully understand; I guess it has > something to do with the history of other TLPs?] umbrella projects don't scale: communities fragment. too many layers, too many rules required, too much management requried, not enough coding... 2. Cayenne is a mature community-based project that has demonstrated > self-management abilities that we would like to preserve. 3. We have a number of subprojects that evolved around Cayenne core > that are not about database interaction - there is a Swing widget > binding framework (and a GUI tool), there is an ability to do object > persistence and distributed object management via web services (aka > remote object persistence feature), etc. In other words Cayenne is > not DB centric; what's common in all the features above is that all > those are object [management|binding|persistence] services centered > around a single object model. > subproject is sometimes just a little bit of a dirty word around here ;) organising things into sub-projects (and sub-sub-projects) tends to fragment communities and obscures legal oversight. flatter organisations scale better. it's more important in the ASF as there's already a extra layer. but having different products or components developed by the Cayenne community shouldn't be a problem. the key is wanting to keep the community together. this can be helped by sharing communal facilities (such as mailing lists and having only one class of committer). - robert
