Hi Thomas, glad to hear that you are back and I appreciate very much that you are willing to contribute to our project.
Unfortunately it's not as easy as I hoped it would be. I was hoping that you and Benjamin could become committers of our project and that you would get write access to our SVN this way. Then we could have started a new sub-project for the DBGenerator with you, Benjamin and other committer working together. Sadly my proposal to do it this way was rejected by our mentors since they demand that potential new committers must prove their interest in the project by submitting several patches over the period of a year or more before they can become committers. Since we're also not allowed to just take over your code without written permission things are going to be difficult. So at the moment I don't see any chance that we could benefit from your work. All we could do at the moment is take your ideas and implement it ourselves - which in my opinion would not be fair. Not even sure it would be legal. This is sad but so are the rules. Sorry that I don't have better news. But I will try to find out if there is another option and let you know. Regards Rainer Thomas Poling wrote: > Re: suggestions for improving Thomas' DBGenerataor > > Greetings All: > I was on business travel last week so I'm just catching up on the > emails. > I agree with almost all the changes suggested - I like the idea of > getting > rid of the DB connection specifics and keeping it simple by removing > all the > interfaces and finder methods. As people use it we can add commonly > suggested features later. The only part I'd like to keep are the > access > method for simple attributes because this keeps my hand-generated code > a > little shorter. > > Many thanks for making the EmpireDB driver configurable and for > Mavenizing > the project. I guess that now would be a good time to learn Maven :) > > I would like to merge all the changes and then maybe put it into the > svn > repository. Or should we first put the code into the svn repository > and > then merge in the changes? > > Thanks, Tom
