[news.eclipse.technology.jsr220-orm] Re: JSR243 support in JSR220ORM pro

["Christiaan" <none@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Robert,
I absolutely agree with you that there is lower priority in providing 
tooling for JDO 2, since there already is the VOA workbench which does a 
very nice job. I do hope there is good balance between providing the tooling 
and the JDO 2 runtime. My experience is that JDO 2 features are a necessity 
to build mature applications. I think a lot of people will agree on that 
since in the end, the JDO 2 spec did pass the jsr ballot. I cannot imagine 
that EJB3 already has that level of feature-richness.

Although tooling is very important, providing a good runtime really makes 
the difference. Since eclipse projects are not about vendors at all (which 
in my opinion really contradicts the fact that there are now two projects 
which only differ in the vendors supporting it), the added value of the 
company is in the runtime they provide. Having that much of experience with 
JDO it must be a great advantage in implementing the java persistence api. I 
do hope you continue to provide a very good runtime with all necessary 
persistence features to build applications, whether that is called jdo 2, 
ejb3 or java persistence api.

kind regards,
Christiaan

"Robert Greene" <rgreene@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:dhht1q$b4e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Luc,
>
> Yes, I think you are right.  The roadmap of this project need to be 
> updated
> to reflect better the realities of implementation in addition to its
> desires.  I will do that in the next few days.  In the "Introduction"
> section of the roadmap it does state that we want to build the tooling so
> that it can "provide an implementation that is extensible to accommodate 
> new
> types of input and generate artifacts for alternative runtimes".  The
> Milestones that were initially defined were clearly targeting JSR220
> capabilities and that is still the current direction as the "merge" of the
> specs as described in the charter seem to be more of a movement towards
> JSR220.   As much as we have desire to support JDO as another artifact, it
> has proven to be impractical given the projects resources to do this in a
> meaningful timeframe.   We would certainly welcome more community
> participation, so that we can do more in less time.  However, it seems 
> that
> for now JDO is simply an alternative type of runtime that the tooling
> "could" support.
>
> Bjorn has pointed out to me in the past that we need to be clearer 
> regarding
> our objectives and timelines.  There just always seems to be something 
> else
> that needs to be done.  I will update the roadmap in the next days.
>
> Regards,
> -Robert
>
> Robert Greene
> JSR220-ORM team lead
> rgreene@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>> A longwinded way of ending up at the question: what support for JSR243
>> can we expect from the project ? If there is none planned, shouldn't
>> goals and roadmap state this more cleary ?
>>
>> Cheers, Luc.
>
>