Maybe as a first question - how 'done' do you consider the basic
architecture of the CMP2.0 module? Done enough that there aren't going
to be any major structural changes, or might it get turned upside down?
As a frame of reference for my frame of mind, in my statements/questions
below, I'm assuming that it _won't_ get turned upside down.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> The query-method element is right out of the EJB 2.0 spec. The
> <declared-sql> element is similar to jaws finder element, except I have
> broken the query element into from and where.
Thank you. having them combined made some things really painful. This is
something I was going to change in JAWS.
> I also support order as jaws
> did. The new code doesn't have the new pre-load logic, but I will add
> something similar in phase 3, where I'll add ejb-ql support.
Do you have any objection to Bill or I getting the initial underpinnings
in there now? It's changed quite a bit since the version of JAWS that
you (apparently) based your new work on.
On a related (triggering, in fact) note: do you see your CMP
implementation obsoleting JAWS, or augmenting it? Personally, I had
intended on taking a chainsaw through JAWS anyway, so I wouldn't mind
seeing it obsoleted. If it's obsoleted, I really think we may as well
get more people than you working on it - hence the above question.
Or if not, I'll find something else to do.
>
> If you find any bugs or would like to request a feature, please email me. I
> will fix bugs as they are discovered, and feature req1uests I will
> definitely think over.
I really think that these should be posted on the sourceforge site -
bugs because it lets us get more bandwidth - people other than you can
fix the bugs, which means that more eyes will be on the code, which will
lead to better code. That's why it's open source, after all.
thanks,
danch
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
