I'm fine with most of what is said here, one component per database and one service per table is fine. In this context, JDBC is probably good enough, except for handling OCC as the data or feeds are going to work in a disconnected way.
I also see this evolving in the near future, to be more sophisticated, providing support for all CRUD operations and pre-defined queries where data from multiple table are combined together; you will probably want some OCC support, and support for managed versus un-managed environments, then I think we should use some kind of framework that already handles some of these complexity for us. Some more thoughts/comments inline : On 10/2/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to start using the implementation-data extension in the Store > sample, first to have the contents of the sample Catalog in a database, > then maybe extend it to the ShoppingCart as well. > +1, but be aware that right now there is only support for read, expanding the support of CRUD operations > In that context, I'm thinking about evolving the implementation-data > extension a little, along the following lines: > > - One component per database so we don't have to repeat the database > connection info in each component. > +1 > - One service per table, named like the table, so we don't have to know > a fixed service name and also when you look at the service it's obvious > which table it works with. > +1 > - Experiment with using JDBC directly, as we already have > implementation-das to leverage the DAS/SDO runtime. > > - Taking and returning an StAX XMLStreamReader, as it'll be sufficient > (and really lightweight) if the Tuscany databinding framework can > convert that XML data to whatever databinding is needed by other > components in the assembly. > Could you elaborate more ? Is your proposal to, internally, use StAX XMLStreamReader, but no changes on the client side, is this right ? Would it cause too much transformation JDBC -> XMLStreamReader -> Some kind of object and vice versa ? What benefits you see here ? Do we also need a Feed databinding to help expose data as feeds ? > Thoughts? > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
