Alex Lukin wrote:
Sounds good again but:
1) Current ocm in jackrabbit source tree does not have anything in common with
JPA annotation and/or ideology
2) JPA is based on relational approach and does not work properly with tree-like
structures we use often with JCR
3) JPA is monstrous as current jackrabbit OCM is.
4) Where is effort mentioned above to join? Where is published source to look
at?
I checked jcrom and created nodes in 5 minutes. Current OCM took much much more
time to go trough broken docs, complicated tests and hanging ends...
So my opinion is: Simple and quick OCM like jcrom.org is just great solution.
If some standard-addicted company wants to implement JPA on top JCR - that's
good.
If current "official" OCM is more flexible and powerfull - that's good too, but
I need working OCM now and can't wait new implementations and neverending doc
fixings.
Just my 2 cents, Jack Rabbit will not provide any advantages for Java Object
Mapping, on the opposite side, will cause you many problems. As it mentioned
before JR works with tree structures and not collections.
If you want working JOM, have a look at https://hyperjaxb.dev.java.net that
actually fit this task.
19 messages in org.apache.jackrabbit.devRe: Content Object Mapping - jcrom.org
