Armin Waibel wrote:
Also:
* status: +warning re OTM, please help updating the docs!
Isn't a normal note instead of a warning sufficient or do think a
warning is needed because of the unsettled status?
That was more of an "eye-catcher" for us, I planned to remove both
notice/warning before commiting anything. I just put this up big
where I had no clue what to write. :)
* status: +notice/fixme re S.O.D.A., please help updating the docs!
AFAIK long time ago it was decided that the SODA support will be removed
(maybe I'm wrong), because no one ever used this api.
OK, I'll drop it from the doco again until further notice, but I think:
*) if it is usable, why not mention it?
*) if it us unsuable, why not remove it from both docs and code?
Update the texts for the "Testing" section.
+1
Suggest to remove in all summary.xml files the <section> element to
suppress the TOC at the beginning of the document. On a summary site a
TOC is not needed.
Yes, I thought so too- it looked a bit strange with a redundand TOC like so:
TOC TITLE
link to boxed title
[BOXED TITLE]
paragraph about title
It's really rubbing it in, in the readers face? :)
I'll have a look a changing the boxed title into just title for all of those.
I took the latest descriptions from Commons Pool and Commons DBCP
websites and updated
repository.dtd (what you see on the webpage is copied from
repository.dtd).
(Note that there is a new 'minIdle' marked "since OJB 1.0.4", since it
only exists in
my local codebase yet. When upgrading commons pool we got this one
"secretly" with
a backwards compatible default of 0. I will add it to repository.dtd
and connection conf.)
Could we add these properties too (to enable prepared statement caching
in DBCP, as suggested by you in another thread)?
poolPreparedStatements
maxOpenPreparedStatements
Yup, they are in my code and I am running tests at the moment. I can't
test those very well because they conflict with the same concept
(PreparedStatement caching) in the Oracle JDBC-driver, I will run it
against HSQLDB also since the DBCP solution is pure POJO-based and
has no driver requierments at all. Ie, I _think_ it should be good
for MaxDB/SapDB.
I'm finishing the tests/comitts for a few smaller updates in connection
factories in a few hours.
http://people.apache.org/~mkalen/ojb/site/docu/guides/deployment.html#Introduction
+0, I run my tests against JBoss 3.2.3. Think this version is J2EE 1.3
compliant, never tested with JBoss 4.0. Do we have to make a
recommendation?
Not at all, I just scanned many documents quickly and thought that
"hey, J2SDK 1.4 is not exactly the void and unknown - do we really
mean what we say here?".
If you say we do, I agree by default. :)
Think after the first stable release we should use Geronimo as default
testing platform for OJB's J2EE integration.
Forget what I said, this was just a guess based on those compile-time
dependency replacements that we have done. I am not running OJB in
any J2EE container, just Tomcat - that's another reason why I didn't
want to change this without asking.
I must admit that I didn't find time to setup Geronimo with the OJB
session bean samples (last time I looked on the web-site Geronimo
doesn't support hot/auto-deployment of resources). Do you have
experience in using Geronimo?
Very little, we will just keep the documented solution that works IMO!
Regards,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
