Skip to main content

making JDO part of mustang

7 replies [Last post]
omar_cv
Offline
Joined: 2004-03-04
Points: 0

with the new advances in JDO 2.0 it seems very compelling to add ADD JDO to Mustang ,I am strongly supporting this to take place keeping in mind that Microsoft is adding object spaces in its next .NET framework.
I hope we can see this take place in Mustang.

Message was edited by: denismo, fixed subject

Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jwenting
Offline
Joined: 2003-12-02
Points: 0

-100

J2SE is already way too bloated since the addition of XML and Swing as standard packages.
Please don't make it even bigger...

The core libraries should be just that, the core.
All the rest should be optional packages which can be installed as needed.

iwadasn
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-09
Points: 0

Oh man, please no. I work with JDO all day, the last thing it needs is to be part of the core java framework.

Persistence belongs in J2EE. If you need persistence, then get J2EE and be done with it.

I also always felt that JDO was a bit of a hack, but I won't go into that now. Suffice it to say, I think it's important to have some concept of where the appserver ends and the database begins (though straight JDBC is out of the question), and a framework shouldn't completely hide that you're dealing with persistent objects.

johnreynolds
Offline
Joined: 2003-06-12
Points: 0

> Persistence belongs in J2EE. If you need persistence,
> then get J2EE and be done with it.

I have to differ with this statement since it implies that you only need persistence for appserver based applications.

Perhaps JDO doesn't belong in the base J2SE... but I think that J2EE has become just as much a dumping ground.

I think we need a much more function-oriented breakdown for Java... the base J2SE should get smaller and the number of "add-ons" should increase.

jwenting
Offline
Joined: 2003-12-02
Points: 0

> Perhaps JDO doesn't belong in the base J2SE... but I
> think that J2EE has become just as much a dumping
> ground.
>
Well said, BOTH J2SE AND J2EE have become increasingly bloated with functionality that should not be an integral part of them but provided as optional addons.
What I see in this forum is an extremely disturbing tendency to make this situation even worse.

> I think we need a much more function-oriented
> breakdown for Java... the base J2SE should get
> smaller and the number of "add-ons" should increase.

standing ovation for that idea! It's my opinion exactly.
Let's draw up a list of things that should NOT be part of the standard distribution instead of finding ever more crud to add to it.
I think we could strip a few thousand classes from J2SE which are better off in pluggable addons.

ahmetaa
Offline
Joined: 2003-06-21
Points: 0

i believe this kind of "global persistence mechanisms" should not be a part of standart J2SDK. it can be a part of J2EE 1.5 or further. Runtime environment should be as small as possible IMHO.

patrikbeno
Offline
Joined: 2004-10-11
Points: 0

So you think persistence is only enterprise requirement? Desktop apps do not persist data?

However, JDO is just a set of interfaces, it is a specification. Thus, it will increase overall size of the J2SDK by 25K only. I think it's worth it.

I don't think we're speaking about any particular implementation to become part of the JDK. It's like java.sql: won't work without extra JDBC driver.

patrikbeno
Offline
Joined: 2004-10-11
Points: 0

+10
However, since Sun decided to create yet another persistence framework (something like JDO+EJB3, don't ask me why), I think they won't be willing to do this.

Message was edited by: denismo, fixed subject