Re: remote object persistence - client classes

From: Tomi NA (hefes..mail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 07 2006 - 04:06:23 EDT

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: oid as PK"

    On 7/5/06, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:

    > The interesting part is "processMessage(ClientMessage)" - essentially
    > all communications (including queries and updates) are done using a
    > set of ClientMessages. The simplest message would be a QueryMessage
    > that holds a NamedQuery. This is probably the place to start.
    >
    > To estimate the level of effort ... with my current knowledge of the
    > framework it would probably take me 2-5 hours to rewrite a very basic
    > context-less query client in Java . There may be language-specific
    > caveats of course. And a learning curve...

    I still have to try out the existing remote object persistence myself:
    the possibility might present itself fairly soon, though.
    When I get a better feel for the speed of the entire concept and it's
    flexibility, I'll be able to comment more.
    As far as development is concerned, it seems to be that the way to go
    about it would be to define a minimum feature set, isolate the
    existing Java classes which implement this functionality in the ROP
    client and rewrite it class by class in something else. The first
    "foreign" language to implement such functionality would best be
    selected by the preferences of the people writing the code.
    Implementations in other would probably be much more straightforward,
    as the developers could litteraly try to rewrite a fairly small
    collection of classes in another language. Just thinking out loud...

    t..n.a.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jul 07 2006 - 04:06:51 EDT