Re: [stellation-res] Databases, artifacts and all the rest...

["Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <mcc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 16 August 2002 10:34 am, Ringo De Smet wrote:
> Having nothing but artifact types, I came up with having the SQL in the
> ArtifactAgents, so away from the DBAccessPoint. It's true that it seems
> to conflict the statement I make in this section, and true you are! I
> haven't had time enough to come up with a clear answer or direction,
> but the only thing I can say is that artifact agents should be able to
> speak to the database access layer in a standardised API on how to
> store and retrieve the information belonging to the artifact type. The
> specific implementation of the database layer can then generate SQL
> statements optimized for the RDBMS in use. Maybe OJB(1) can provide us
> with a lot of support in this area. On the other hand, my view on this
> matter could be oversimplified, but then I would like to hear from you
> all.

Based on my initial look at OJB, I think that for now, I'm not going to
try to implement anything with it. That's not a condemnation of it at
all - it looks like a very interesting system. But there's going to be a
significant learning curve to use it, and to be honest, this whole
database parameterization issue has already taken a lot more time
than I ever expected. 

For now, I'm going to stick with a simpler approach than OJB. If
anyone out there wants to take the time to OJBify Stellation, and
it works well, I wouldn't be at all disappointed to throw away the 
code that I'm working on in favor of an OJB replacement.

	-Mark

-- 
Mark Craig Chu-Carroll,  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center  
*** The Stellation project: Advanced SCM for Collaboration
***		http://www.eclipse.org/stellation
*** Work Email: mcc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  ------- Personal Email: markcc@xxxxxxxxxxx