Allen, I note a stark difference between this email and one of the first emails from you in the thread:
""" assuming we agree that we are only focusing on implementing one of the options, we then need to decide which one. just so it's known, i think it's entirely lame that we are getting rid of Hibernate over a silly licensing issue. as a large roller customer i consider it more of a pain than a benefit to have to replace the backend. regardless of that fact, it appears that's what everyone wants to do, so i consider Hibernate to no longer be an option. that leaves JDO and JPA as you mentioned, and i don't really have any preference between the two. """ Now it seems that the *only* option for you (is it for Sun, too?) is Hibernate. Is that correct? Why the change of opinion? If I may ask. -Elias Allen Gilliland wrote: > I still want more information about the soft vs. hard dependency issue > WRT Hibernate being part of the project, but whatever the outcome of > that is doesn't change the fact that I continue to support Hibernate as > our implementation. > > I should also say that depending on how this works out this is something > that could put us (blogs.sun.com) at odds with the community and > encourage us to go our own direction. > > My only concern is for my installation of Roller at blogs.sun.com and as > I've said before, switching to something other than Hibernate is only > going to create problems for us. As far as I'm concerned Hibernate > still offers the best option as the persistence implementation and since > the licensing issue does not affect us specifically then I don't see any > reason to mess with it. At some point we will likely be willing to try > a JPA implementation, but we are not really interested in being one of > the first adopters, so that won't happen for a while. > > Depending on the outcome of the soft vs. hard dependency issue and > whether or not apache will provide us some potential way to continue > using Hibernate legally is what will determine my final point of view. > > -- Allen > > > Dave Johnson wrote: >> On 8/16/06, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I support Elias's option #2 with some concessions to #1. >> >> I feel about the same way. >> >> On the question of "who here wants to replace Hibernate?" >> >> Hibernate's LGPL licensing is incompatible with Apache policy and >> there exists a set of contributors who are willing and able to provide >> an alternative backend impl. I'm a member of that set. If we create an >> alternative, it works well and we've got consensus then we'll ship it >> with Roller. Do we have to do this before we graduate? I sure as hell >> hope not. >> >> On the question of "which ORM should we choose?" >> >> I definitely believe we should ship one ORM with Roller and the Roller >> project should not do anything to promote, document or support the >> idea of users plugging in alternative ORMs. >> >> Personally I favor JPA because 1) there will be multiple high-quality >> implementatons (some at Apache) and 2) Hibernate is one of the >> implementations. So we'd ship OpenJPA or something similar, but folks >> who *really* want to continue using Hibernate can figure out on their >> own how to configure Roller to use Hibernate's JPA implementation. >> >> On the question of "Data Mapper good or bad?" >> >> I'm +1 on Data Mapper. The Data Mapper pattern allows us to abstract >> ORM queries, just as our Persistence Strategy allows us to abstract >> ORM load/save operations. We'll have a complete persistence >> abstraction, something I've always wanted to see. The ability to >> compare JPA, JDO and possibly other ORMs seems like a key feature >> right now. Having named and externalized queries is nice too. >> >> - Dave >
