You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/19 10:32:40 UTC
Object Content Mapping - Status
Hi all,
I would like to check together what is missing in the OCM framework for its
first release.
I think if the following issues are solved, we are ready to make it :
JCR-965 : On an XP machine, the unit tests provide some errors with the
Derby Persistence Manager
JCR-873 : Review the doc
JCR-871 : Add readme files
JCR-930 : Rename the PersistenceManager into ObjectContentManager (in
progress).
It is also the good time get more feedbacks on the framewok. You are welcome
to create new Jira issues or post comments on this mailing.
br,
Christophe
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Pavel Konnikov <ko...@gmail.com>.
for example:
if define
<field-descriptor fieldName="name" jcrName="name" id="true"/>
and set
myObject.setName("namedNode");
we get redundant property name
/namedNode/name = namedNode
node name is "namedNode" and name property value is "namedNode".
may be remove redundant property from node when filed-descriptor has id?
--
Best regards. Pavel Konnikov
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1 thanks
On 6/19/07, Pavel Konnikov <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Aslo would be nice to add constructor like
>
> ObjectContentManagerImpl(Session session, InputStream[] xmlMappings)
>
> to be able use it with ServletContext.getResourceAsStream()
>
>
> --
> Best regards. Pavel Konnikov
>
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Pavel Konnikov <ko...@gmail.com>.
Hello.
Aslo would be nice to add constructor like
ObjectContentManagerImpl(Session session, InputStream[] xmlMappings)
to be able use it with ServletContext.getResourceAsStream()
--
Best regards. Pavel Konnikov
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
ok for 1.4. I have my summer vacation to work on this release :-)
Thanks,
Christophe
On 6/20/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 6/20/07, Felix Meschberger <Fe...@day.com> wrote:
> > Re Release: If adding OCM to the 1.4 release, would it be possible to
> have
> > an initial "standalone" release after 1.3.1 but before Jackrabbit 1.4 ?
> I
> > have no actual requirement currently, just being curious.
>
> If people want that, then it's certainly possible to do such a
> standalone release.
>
> I guess sooner or later we need to start splitting the synchronous
> release cycle into independent subproject cycles. That would
> eventually mean creating independent Jira spaces for the subprojects,
> etc. I would preferably wait at least until Jackrabbit 2.0 before we
> take that road, but it's certainly possible to do isolated component
> releases already before that.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 6/20/07, Felix Meschberger <Fe...@day.com> wrote:
> Re Release: If adding OCM to the 1.4 release, would it be possible to have
> an initial "standalone" release after 1.3.1 but before Jackrabbit 1.4 ? I
> have no actual requirement currently, just being curious.
If people want that, then it's certainly possible to do such a
standalone release.
I guess sooner or later we need to start splitting the synchronous
release cycle into independent subproject cycles. That would
eventually mean creating independent Jira spaces for the subprojects,
etc. I would preferably wait at least until Jackrabbit 2.0 before we
take that road, but it's certainly possible to do isolated component
releases already before that.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Felix Meschberger <Fe...@day.com>.
Hi,
Thanks for adding this to continuum.
Re Release: If adding OCM to the 1.4 release, would it be possible to have
an initial "standalone" release after 1.3.1 but before Jackrabbit 1.4 ? I
have no actual requirement currently, just being curious.
Regard
Felix
On 6/20/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 6/20/07, Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/20/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Do you want to make a standalone OCM release,
> > > or should we include it as a component in the Jackrabbit 1.4 release?
> >
> > It should nice to see it as a component of Jackrabbit 1.4. I think more
> > developpers will use it if it is an "official" Jackrabbit component.
>
> Agreed. I'd love to see OCM going out in Jackrabbit 1.4, which really
> seems to be shaping up as an excellent release with all the recent
> activity.
>
> > Why not for Jackrabbit 1.3.1 (depending on the release date) ?
>
> 1.3.1 is planned to go out in two weeks so the schedule is really
> tight. Our policy has also been to avoid introducing new features in
> patch releases, so I would rather go for 1.4.
>
> My current thinking is to have 1.4 going out sometime in
> September/October, which actually is pretty close already given that
> activity is likely to drop a bit during the next two months due to
> summer vacations.
>
> > > It would be nice to have OCM included in our Continuum installation at
> > > http://jackrabbit.zones.apache.org/. Do you mind if I do the required
> > > POM updates (mostly <scm/> entries)?
> >
> > Excellent idea.
>
> I'll go for it.
>
> > Another point :
> > Do you have some recommandation for the website doc ? I would like to
> > migrate the old ocm into the Jackrabbit website.
>
> The Jackrabbit website is really quite a mess and I've been meaning to
> do something about that for a long while. I've created a set of
> component documentation pages under doc/components, it would probably
> be best to start putting OCM documentation in there for now.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 6/20/07, Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you want to make a standalone OCM release,
> > or should we include it as a component in the Jackrabbit 1.4 release?
>
> It should nice to see it as a component of Jackrabbit 1.4. I think more
> developpers will use it if it is an "official" Jackrabbit component.
Agreed. I'd love to see OCM going out in Jackrabbit 1.4, which really
seems to be shaping up as an excellent release with all the recent
activity.
> Why not for Jackrabbit 1.3.1 (depending on the release date) ?
1.3.1 is planned to go out in two weeks so the schedule is really
tight. Our policy has also been to avoid introducing new features in
patch releases, so I would rather go for 1.4.
My current thinking is to have 1.4 going out sometime in
September/October, which actually is pretty close already given that
activity is likely to drop a bit during the next two months due to
summer vacations.
> > It would be nice to have OCM included in our Continuum installation at
> > http://jackrabbit.zones.apache.org/. Do you mind if I do the required
> > POM updates (mostly <scm/> entries)?
>
> Excellent idea.
I'll go for it.
> Another point :
> Do you have some recommandation for the website doc ? I would like to
> migrate the old ocm into the Jackrabbit website.
The Jackrabbit website is really quite a mess and I've been meaning to
do something about that for a long while. I've created a set of
component documentation pages under doc/components, it would probably
be best to start putting OCM documentation in there for now.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 6/20/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 6/19/07, Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to check together what is missing in the OCM framework for
> its
> > first release.
>
> Kudos for the progress!
This is nothing compare to the Jackrabbit core :-)
Do you want to make a standalone OCM release,
> or should we include it as a component in the Jackrabbit 1.4 release?
It should nice to see it as a component of Jackrabbit 1.4. I think more
developpers will use it if it is an "official" Jackrabbit component.
Why not for Jackrabbit 1.3.1 (depending on the release date) ?
It would be nice to have OCM included in our Continuum installation at
> http://jackrabbit.zones.apache.org/. Do you mind if I do the required
> POM updates (mostly <scm/> entries)?
Excellent idea.
Another point :
Do you have some recommandation for the website doc ? I would like to
migrate the old ocm into the Jackrabbit website.
br,
Christophe
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 6/19/07, Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to check together what is missing in the OCM framework for its
> first release.
Kudos for the progress! Do you want to make a standalone OCM release,
or should we include it as a component in the Jackrabbit 1.4 release?
It would be nice to have OCM included in our Continuum installation at
http://jackrabbit.zones.apache.org/. Do you mind if I do the required
POM updates (mostly <scm/> entries)?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 6/19/07, Pavel Konnikov <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello, Christophe
>
> I am currently work at GSoC project mu-assessment and use ocm. I think the
> folowing will be useful
>
> add automaticaly registration namespace "ocm" and node types from
> custom_nodetypes.xml
You are right.
I would like also to register auto. the xml mapping file from which it
should be possible to create the matching node types if they are not yet in
the repo. Later, with the annotation support, we could do similar process
from the jar.
br,
Christophe
Re: Object Content Mapping - Status
Posted by Pavel Konnikov <ko...@gmail.com>.
Hello, Christophe
I am currently work at GSoC project mu-assessment and use ocm. I think the
folowing will be useful
add automaticaly registration namespace "ocm" and node types from
custom_nodetypes.xml
--
Best regards. Pavel Konnikov