Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-pmc] Oracel's JSR 220 / ORM technology project creation review


Thx for the summary. A couple more thoughts:

1. The plan is for them to exit the Technology project in time to be included in WTP 1.5. We need to interlock with them to ensure this goes smoothly.
2. We should try to add a server adapter for the JEE 5.0 RI, Glass Fish since it will implement the new EJB 3.0 APIs. We could do this ourselves or try to engage Sun. A Generic Adapter might not be too difficult.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx

"Tim Wagner" <twagner@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/26/2005 12:53 PM

Please respond to
"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)"

"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[wtp-pmc] Oracel's JSR 220 / ORM technology project creation review

Slidedeck attached.
Some additional comments from the Q&A:
  • They see differences between their approach and Versant’s; ultimately, the two projects will need to work together on some core issues, but they are not coordinating their development activities as a whole into a single project.
  • Oracle’s project is developer (and source) focused; their plan is to graduate to WTP’s JST project as another type of J2EE API. (Contrasted with Versant’s plans to graduate to DTP and align more with data tooling and visual representation of O-R mappings.)
  • No dates are present on their milestone page, but M1 is roughly done, M2 is roughly August, and M3 is roughly September. M4 is less well defined at this point.
  • I encouraged them to integrate with the APT component and provide requirements/feedback ASAP, since planning for 3.2 work in that area is already in flight and they obviously have a strong need for annotation-based support in this project.
  • They have not looked closely at the existing EMF models in WTP for EJBs, but believe their modeling work to date is largely orthogonal.
Arthur, please add anything I’ve missed.
wtp-pmc mailing list

Back to the top