an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)

Hello Boni,

even this answer wasn't directed to me, please let me answer to it.

I believe that the best/superior/whatever tool is the one that does
the job the way you want it.

OCM is the most complete, official, sofisticated,
add_more_adjectives_here, JCR OR mapping solution, but JCROM looks far
simpler and is based on annotations, which is a great thing for people
coming from other OR mapping solutions (like Hibernate) because it makes
things more "familiar", which is always a big plus for development.

Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
> Fabain : Runtime every generic will be an Object and ONLY of type java.lang.Object. It is not a problem with jackrabbit-ocm but a result of the way generics is implemented in Java. However you will be able to map out the object exactly the say you want to map it our by using the right converter (Bean Converter or Collection Converter) available with jackrabbit-ocm. If none is fitting your requirements writing one is very simple too. Why don't you lay out your exact requirements I will be able to help you with it. I am in the thick of a jackrabbit-ocm based persistent storage implementation and I am effextively using a generic dao (AbstractDao<T>) just like the one JCROM has. There is absolutely any doubt that jackrabbit-ocm is superior to any JCR OR mapping tools available currentl
y.
>
> Thanks
> boni
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fard [mailto:maurice.fard@gmail.com]
> Sent: 10 November 2008 21:18
> To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
>
>
> Hello Fabián,
>
> Your example is a good example. It is exactly one of my problems.
> the other things in JACROM I could not define a filed with java.lang.Object
> type in my class. Beacause I would like to assign an object/s of any type
> (for example String, File,...) during run time to it.
> I have also used native Jackrabbit OCM and I couldn't solve my problem with
> it.
> So I'm looking for anather OCM for transaction with Jackrabbit.
>
> Regards
>
> Fard
>
>
> Fabián Mandelbaum wrote:
>
>> Fard escribió:
>>
>>> Hello there,
>>>
>>> I am looking for an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping). I have used
>>> JCROM and I found it is useful, but recently I found it is not a good
>>> remedy
>>> for java generic programming.
>>>
>>> I really really appreciate any help.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Fard
>>>
>>>
>> Hello Fard,
>>
>> what do you mean with "Java Generic Programming"? Things like:
>>
>> public class SomeDAO<T>
>>
>> for example?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

OCM supports annotations and XML mappings. And it supports custom converters for simple types, Beans and collections. The only disagreement I have with the design is the need to carry 'path' as part of the bean that I want to persist.

Btw: I was the one to whom Fabian had suggested the wrapper class approach. Unfortunately I was not able to cheat persistence layer to think that something is persistable only because it came wrapped in a 'Serializable' blanket. So that wrapper solution does not really work with JCROM. : Just FYI

Thanks
boni



-----Original Message-----
From: Fabián Mandelbaum [mailto:fmandelbaum@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 November 2008 15:28
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)

Hello Boni,

even this answer wasn't directed to me, please let me answer to it.

I believe that the best/superior/whatever tool is the one that does
the job the way you want it.

OCM is the most complete, official, sofisticated,
add_more_adjectives_here, JCR OR mapping solution, but JCROM looks far
simpler and is based on annotations, which is a great thing for people
coming from other OR mapping solutions (like Hibernate) because it makes
things more "familiar", which is always a big plus for development.

Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
> Fabain : Runtime every generic will be an Object and ONLY of type java.lang.Object. It is not a problem with jackrabbit-ocm but a result of the way generics is implemented in Java. However you will be able to map out the object exactly the say you want to map it our by using the right converter (Bean Converter or Collection Converter) available with jackrabbit-ocm. If none is fitting your requirements writing one is very simple too. Why don't you lay out your exact requirements I will be able to help you with it. I am in the thick of a jackrabbit-ocm based persistent storage implementation and I am effextively using a generic dao (AbstractDao<T>) just like the one JCROM has. There is absolutely any doubt that jackrabbit-ocm is superior to any JCR OR mapping tools available currently.
>
> Thanks
> boni
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fard [mailto:maurice.fard@gmail.com]
> Sent: 10 November 2008 21:18
> To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
>
>
> Hello Fabián,
>
> Your example is a good example. It is exactly one of my problems.
> the other things in JACROM I could not define a filed with java.lang.Object
> type in my class. Beacause I would like to assign an object/s of any type
> (for example String, File,...) during run time to it.
> I have also used native Jackrabbit OCM and I couldn't solve my problem with
> it.
> So I'm looking for anather OCM for transaction with Jackrabbit.
>
> Regards
>
> Fard
>
>
> Fabián Mandelbaum wrote:
>
>> Fard escribió:
>>
>>> Hello there,
>>>
>>> I am looking for an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping). I have used
>>> JCROM and I found it is useful, but recently I found it is not a good
>>> remedy
>>> for java generic programming.
>>>
>>> I really really appreciate any help.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Fard
>>>
>>>
>> Hello Fard,
>>
>> what do you mean with "Java Generic Programming"? Things like:
>>
>> public class SomeDAO<T>
>>
>> for example?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Boni,

I apologize, it seems it's been a long time since I don't take a
look at OCM and/or OCM has progressed a lot lately.

I didn't remember it was you I suggested the wrapper approach, sad
to hear it didn't work ;-(

Thanks for your clarifications.

Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
> OCM supports annotations and XML mappings. And it supports custom converters for simple types, Beans and collections. The only disagreement I have with the design is the need to carry 'path' as part of the bean that I want to persist.
>
> Btw: I was the one to whom Fabian had suggested the wrapper class approach. Unfortunately I was not able to cheat persistence layer to think that something is persistable only because it came wrapped in a 'Serializable' blanket. So that wrapper solution does not really work with JCROM. : Just FYI
>
> Thanks
> boni
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fabián Mandelbaum [mailto:fmandelbaum@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 November 2008 15:28
> To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
>
> Hello Boni,
>
> even this answer wasn't directed to me, please let me answer to it.
>
> I believe that the best/superior/whatever tool is the one that does
> the job the way you want it.
>
> OCM is the most complete, official, sofisticated,
> add_more_adjectives_here, JCR OR mapping solution, but JCROM looks far
> simpler and is based on annotations, which is a great thing for people
> coming from other OR mapping solutions (like Hibernate) because it makes
> things more "familiar", which is always a big plus for development.
>
> Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
>
>> Fabain : Runtime every generic will be an Object and ONLY of type java.lang.Object. It is not a problem with jackrabbit-ocm but a result of the way generics is implemented in Java. However you will be able to map out the object exactly the say you want to map it our by using the right converter (Bean Converter or Collection Converter) available with jackrabbit-ocm. If none is fitting your requirements writing one is very simple too. Why don't you lay out your exact requirements I will be able to help you with it. I am in the thick of a jackrabbit-ocm based persistent storage implementation and I am effextively using a generic dao (AbstractDao<T>) just like the one JCROM has. There is absolutely any doubt that jackrabbit-ocm is superior to any JCR OR mapping tools available current
ly.
>>
>> Thanks
>> boni
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fard [mailto:maurice.fard@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 10 November 2008 21:18
>> To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
>>
>>
>> Hello Fabián,
>>
>> Your example is a good example. It is exactly one of my problems.
>> the other things in JACROM I could not define a filed with java.lang.Object
>> type in my class. Beacause I would like to assign an object/s of any type
>> (for example String, File,...) during run time to it.
>> I have also used native Jackrabbit OCM and I couldn't solve my problem with
>> it.
>> So I'm looking for anather OCM for transaction with Jackrabbit.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Fard
>>
>>
>> Fabián Mandelbaum wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fard escribió:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello there,
>>>>
>>>> I am looking for an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping). I have used
>>>> JCROM and I found it is useful, but recently I found it is not a good
>>>> remedy
>>>> for java generic programming.
>>>>
>>>> I really really appreciate any help.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Fard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hello Fard,
>>>
>>> what do you mean with "Java Generic Programming"? Things like:
>>>
>>> public class SomeDAO<T>
>>>
>>> for example?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

OCM provides annotation support and version 1.5 is simpler than version 1.4..

Anyway, let us know what is the complexity in OCM. We can work on it. It is
always positive to receive comments on the work done.

thanks,
Christophe



On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:58, Fabián Mandelbaum <fmandelbaum@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Boni,
>
> even this answer wasn't directed to me, please let me answer to it.
>
> I believe that the best/superior/whatever tool is the one that does
> the job the way you want it.
>
> OCM is the most complete, official, sofisticated,
> add_more_adjectives_here, JCR OR mapping solution, but JCROM looks far
> simpler and is based on annotations, which is a great thing for people
> coming from other OR mapping solutions (like Hibernate) because it makes
> things more "familiar", which is always a big plus for development.
>
> Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
> > Fabain : Runtime every generic will be an Object and ONLY of type
> java.lang.Object. It is not a problem with jackrabbit-ocm but a result of
> the way generics is implemented in Java. However you will be able to map
> out the object exactly the say you want to map it our by using the right
> converter (Bean Converter or Collection Converter) available with
> jackrabbit-ocm. If none is fitting your requirements writing one is very
> simple too. Why don't you lay out your exact requirements I will be ableto
> help you with it. I am in the thick of a jackrabbit-ocm based persistent
> storage implementation and I am effextively using a generic dao
> (AbstractDao<T>) just like the one JCROM has. There is absolutely any doubt
> that jackrabbit-ocm is superior to any JCR OR mapping tools available
> currently.
> >
> > Thanks
> > boni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fard [mailto:maurice.fard@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 10 November 2008 21:18
> > To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
> >
> >
> > Hello Fabián,
> >
> > Your example is a good example. It is exactly one of my problems.
> > the other things in JACROM I could not define a filed with
> java.lang.Object
> > type in my class. Beacause I would like to assign an object/s of any type
> > (for example String, File,...) during run time to it.
> > I have also used native Jackrabbit OCM and I couldn't solve my problem
> with
> > it.
> > So I'm looking for anather OCM for transaction with Jackrabbit.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Fard
> >
> >
> > Fabián Mandelbaum wrote:
> >
> >> Fard escribió:
> >>
> >>> Hello there,
> >>>
> >>> I am looking for an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping). I have
> used
> >>> JCROM and I found it is useful, but recently I found it is not a good
> >>> remedy
> >>> for java generic programming.
> >>>
> >>> I really really appreciate any help.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Fard
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hello Fard,
> >>
> >> what do you mean with "Java Generic Programming"? Things like:
> >>
> >> public class SomeDAO<T>
> >>
> >> for example?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Christophe: I feel it is high time to update the documentation (Tutorial) may be on a war footing :-) . I will put in whatever time I could spare to write tutorial content. Any other volunteers?

-----Original Message-----
From: Christophe Lombart [mailto:christophe.lombart@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 November 2008 16:43
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)

OCM provides annotation support and version 1.5 is simpler than version 1.4.

Anyway, let us know what is the complexity in OCM. We can work on it. It is
always positive to receive comments on the work done.

thanks,
Christophe



On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:58, Fabián Mandelbaum <fmandelbaum@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Boni,
>
> even this answer wasn't directed to me, please let me answer to it.
>
> I believe that the best/superior/whatever tool is the one that does
> the job the way you want it.
>
> OCM is the most complete, official, sofisticated,
> add_more_adjectives_here, JCR OR mapping solution, but JCROM looks far
> simpler and is based on annotations, which is a great thing for people
> coming from other OR mapping solutions (like Hibernate) because it makes
> things more "familiar", which is always a big plus for development.
>
> Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
> > Fabain : Runtime every generic will be an Object and ONLY of type
> java.lang.Object. It is not a problem with jackrabbit-ocm but a result of
> the way generics is implemented in Java. However you will be able to map
> out the object exactly the say you want to map it our by using the right
> converter (Bean Converter or Collection Converter) available with
> jackrabbit-ocm. If none is fitting your requirements writing one is very
> simple too. Why don't you lay out your exact requirements I will be able to
> help you with it. I am in the thick of a jackrabbit-ocm based persistent
> storage implementation and I am effextively using a generic dao
> (AbstractDao<T>) just like the one JCROM has. There is absolutely any doubt
> that jackrabbit-ocm is superior to any JCR OR mapping tools available
> currently.
> >
> > Thanks
> > boni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fard [mailto:maurice.fard@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 10 November 2008 21:18
> > To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
> >
> >
> > Hello Fabián,
> >
> > Your example is a good example. It is exactly one of my problems.
> > the other things in JACROM I could not define a filed with
> java.lang.Object
> > type in my class. Beacause I would like to assign an object/s of any type
> > (for example String, File,...) during run time to it.
> > I have also used native Jackrabbit OCM and I couldn't solve my problem
> with
> > it.
> > So I'm looking for anather OCM for transaction with Jackrabbit.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Fard
> >
> >
> > Fabián Mandelbaum wrote:
> >
> >> Fard escribió:
> >>
> >>> Hello there,
> >>>
> >>> I am looking for an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping). I have
> used
> >>> JCROM and I found it is useful, but recently I found it is not a good
> >>> remedy
> >>> for java generic programming.
> >>>
> >>> I really really appreciate any help.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Fard
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hello Fard,
> >>
> >> what do you mean with "Java Generic Programming"? Things like:
> >>
> >> public class SomeDAO<T>
> >>
> >> for example?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

On Tuesday 11 November 2008 12:29:46 Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) wrote:
> OCM supports annotations and XML mappings. And it supports custom
> converters for simple types, Beans and collections. The only disagreement
> I have with the design is the need to carry 'path' as part of the bean that
> I want to persist.
[skip]
>
> Thanks
> boni

Well, my 2c about things I do not like in current OCM.

1. ocm_discriminator node type registration at startup and other messy stuff. I could be hidden in some hard-coded static function lile ocmInit().
2. path as primary key. I discussed it a lot with author and we are both wih our own opinion I use path in base class just to satisfy ocm, but for real key I use uuid. It is
fast and it allows to keep reference consistance.
3. class registration in annotation mapper. I think global mpper cold handle this and @Node annoation may put registration code into. I'm constatntly forgetting to add class
there I can think of few mappers to speedup things but it is rare case.

Thing I miss is Map. But I guess it is under development now.
May be it's time to think on some improvemnent of smart mapping.

Rest of annotation based stuff I like, I use, I'm happy with and thank you, Christophe!
--
SY, Alex Lukin
RIPE NIC HDL: LEXA1-RIPE

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:25, Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) <
Boni.G@bioimagene.com> wrote:

> Christophe: I feel it is high time to update the documentation (Tutorial)
> may be on a war footing :-) . I will put in whatever time I could spare to
> write tutorial content. Any other volunteers?


Thanks Boni

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lombart [mailto:christophe.lombart@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 November 2008 16:43
> To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
>
> OCM provides annotation support and version 1.5 is simpler than version
> 1.4.
>
> Anyway, let us know what is the complexity in OCM. We can work on it. It is
> always positive to receive comments on the work done.
>
> thanks,
> Christophe
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:58, Fabián Mandelbaum <fmandelbaum@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hello Boni,
> >
> > even this answer wasn't directed to me, please let me answer to it.
> >
> > I believe that the best/superior/whatever tool is the one that does
> > the job the way you want it.
> >
> > OCM is the most complete, official, sofisticated,
> > add_more_adjectives_here, JCR OR mapping solution, but JCROM looks far
> > simpler and is based on annotations, which is a great thing for people
> > coming from other OR mapping solutions (like Hibernate) because it makes
> > things more "familiar", which is always a big plus for development.
> >
> > Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) escribió:
> > > Fabain : Runtime every generic will be an Object and ONLY of type
> > java.lang.Object. It is not a problem with jackrabbit-ocm but a result
> of
> > the way generics is implemented in Java. However you will be able to map
> > out the object exactly the say you want to map it our by using the right
> > converter (Bean Converter or Collection Converter) available with
> > jackrabbit-ocm. If none is fitting your requirements writing one is very
> > simple too. Why don't you lay out your exact requirements I will be able
> to
> > help you with it. I am in the thick of a jackrabbit-ocm based persistent
> > storage implementation and I am effextively using a generic dao
> > (AbstractDao<T>) just like the one JCROM has. There is absolutely any
> doubt
> > that jackrabbit-ocm is superior to any JCR OR mapping tools available
> > currently.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > boni
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fard [mailto:maurice.fard@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: 10 November 2008 21:18
> > > To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping)
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Fabián,
> > >
> > > Your example is a good example. It is exactly one of my problems.
> > > the other things in JACROM I could not define a filed with
> > java.lang.Object
> > > type in my class. Beacause I would like to assign an object/s of any
> type
> > > (for example String, File,...) during run time to it.
> > > I have also used native Jackrabbit OCM and I couldn't solve my problem
> > with
> > > it.
> > > So I'm looking for anather OCM for transaction with Jackrabbit.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Fard
> > >
> > >
> > > Fabián Mandelbaum wrote:
> > >
> > >> Fard escribió:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello there,
> > >>>
> > >>> I am looking for an alternative OCM (Object Content Mapping). I have
> > used
> > >>> JCROM and I found it is useful, but recently I found it is not a good
> > >>> remedy
> > >>> for java generic programming.
> > >>>
> > >>> I really really appreciate any help.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>>
> > >>> Fard
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Hello Fard,
> > >>
> > >> what do you mean with "Java Generic Programming"? Things like:
> > >>
> > >> public class SomeDAO<T>
> > >>
> > >> for example?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:27, Aleksei Lukin <lukin@stu.cn.ua> wrote:

> On Tuesday 11 November 2008 12:29:46 Boni Gopalan (BioImagene) wrote:
> > OCM supports annotations and XML mappings. And it supports custom
> > converters for simple types, Beans and collections. The only
> disagreement
> > I have with the design is the need to carry 'path' as part of the bean
> that
> > I want to persist.
> [skip]
> >
> > Thanks
> > boni
>
> Well, my 2c about things I do not like in current OCM.
>

You are welcome.


>
> 1. ocm_discriminator node type registration at startup and other messy
> stuff. I could be hidden in some hard-coded static function lile ocmInit().


Agree. From 1.5, this node type is not used. So, it is not necessary to
register it on startup.


>
> 2. path as primary key. I discussed it a lot with author and we are both
> wih our own opinion I use path in base class just to satisfy ocm, but for
> real key I use uuid. It is
> fast and it allows to keep reference consistance.


You know my position :-) but it should be nice to see the point of view from
others. For me Path is still a better canditate for an object ID. Maybe we
can try to support both (Path or UUID) as the object id.

>
> 3. class registration in annotation mapper. I think global mpper cold
> handle this and @Node annoation may put registration code into. I'm
> constatntly forgetting to add class
> there


Same problem here :-) . I'm still looking for a good way to scan one or more
packages to find annoted classes on startup. Do you know how I can do it ?


>
>
> Thing I miss is Map. But I guess it is under development now.


Map & collection supports are better . Some thing like this :

@Node Class MyClass
{
@Collection List<AnotherClass> mylist;
@Collection Map<String, YetAnotherClass> myMap;
}


This is really simpler compare to the version 1.4. Don't blame me if the
@Collection is not a good name. There is a jira issue to review that. The
JPA annotations OneToMany or OneToOne are better for me.


>
> May be it's time to think on some improvemnent of smart mapping.



Please create jira issues at least to give us some ideas. I would like to
implement a "default" mapping (without annotation and xml description).



>
>
> Rest of annotation based stuff I like, I use, I'm happy with and thank you,
> Christophe!
> --
> SY, Alex Lukin
> RIPE NIC HDL: LEXA1-RIPE
>

>> 3. class registration in annotation mapper. I think global mpper cold
>> handle this and @Node annoation may put registration code into. I'm
>> constatntly forgetting to add class there
>
>
> Same problem here :-) . I'm still looking for a good way to scan one or
> more packages to find annoted classes on startup. Do you know how I can do
> it ?

Hi,

The technique I use is inspired by Spring @Component discovery.

You can have a look at
org.springframework.core.io.support.PathMatchingRe sourcePatternResolver
and org.springframework.core.type.classreading.Metadat aReader.

Hope it helps, even if I know you guys don't want to depend on Spring...

BR,

Stéphane Landelle

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 16:08, <slandelle@excilys.com> wrote:

> >> 3. class registration in annotation mapper. I think global mpper cold
> >> handle this and @Node annoation may put registration code into. I'm
> >> constatntly forgetting to add class there
> >
> >
> > Same problem here :-) . I'm still looking for a good way to scan one or
> > more packages to find annoted classes on startup. Do you know how I can
> do
> > it ?
>
> Hi,
>
> The technique I use is inspired by Spring @Component discovery.
>
> You can have a look at
> org.springframework.core.io.support.PathMatchingRe sourcePatternResolver
> and org.springframework.core.type.classreading.Metadat aReader.
>

Thanks I will check it

>
> Hope it helps, even if I know you guys don't want to depend on Spring...


>
> BR,
>
> Stéphane Landelle
>
>
>