Discussions

News: Minutes from the JDO 2.0 kickoff meeting

  1. Minutes from the JDO 2.0 kickoff meeting (11 messages)

    As was reported on TheServerSide on Monday, JDO 1.0 expert group members and JDO users got together to discuss the direction of JDO 2.0. The broad strokes of the next release were agreed, along with a significant number of details that we decided to share with the public.

    We have put together the minutes of the meeting, for you all to see.

    Read:

    JDO 2.0 Kickoff Meeting Minutes

    JDO 2.0 Original Report

    Threaded Messages (11)

  2. Thanks for all the effort you put in to collating the minutes of this meeting, Craig, and for making them available to the wider Java community.
  3. Is the same stuff posted on any other site or is it available only on TSS? Is TSS going to be the sole source of JDO 2.0 scoops until the first draft, which could be quite a while away?
  4. Historically TheServerSide.com discussion concerning JDO relates mostly to its market and architectural positioning with regard to other competing standards and products.

    The discussion of technical issues regarding JDO tend to appear mostly on JDOcentral.com and the news group "JavaDataObjects" at Yahoo!Groups.

    You will continue to see preliminary information about JDO 2.0 on both of these forums until the JSR proposal has been accepted and the expert group formally convened. After that time our work is confidential to the JCP until the first community review. Under the current JCP process the community review will be public.

    Kind regards, Robin.
  5. JDO Lives ? or ![ Go to top ]

    The month before the last JavaOne conference I was working on a white paper for TriFork to describe their support of JDO in the TriFork application server. At JavaOne I was bouncing up and down with enthusiast for JDO. So I looked all around the show to learn the latest. Instead, I found myself telling other attendees what JDO is!

    From what I've seen in the market, J2EE developers either have CMP style tools and APIs to work with persistent data or they can use one of a handful of JDO tools. That's not much of a choice. I really, really hope JDO 2.0 gets the attention I believe it deserves.

    -Frank
  6. JDO Lives ? or ![ Go to top ]

    Frank,

    I agree that headline JDO coverage at JavaOne was sparse, although Craig Russell et. al. and the people at the JDOcentral stand did a good job of spreading the word.

    However the JDO marketplace is now more evolved. We currently have 15 commercial JDO implementations (11 for O/R) and 6 open source projects. There are two J2EE app servers which bundle JDO outof the box. I think that's pretty healthy - certainly more than a handful.

    A lot of big name companies are giving JDO significant attention now, either from an investment oportunity perspective or because JDO suddenly poses a pretty large threat to their present technology product mix. So we should see a lot of action in this area.

    And I'll certainly be submitting a session or two on JDO for JavaOne 2004....

    Kind regards, Robin.
  7. JDO marketing[ Go to top ]

    Hi Robin: Thanks for the uplifting reply. I'm glad to see the energy.

    Maybe you should name some names here. It would be good to see who is bundling in JDO now and who seems threatened. :-) This is Server Side controversial stuff. So go for it.

    -Frank
  8. JDO marketing[ Go to top ]

    Ok, this is really interesting. Perhaps even intriguing.

    Immediately after the JDO 2.0 kick-off meeting, messages were posted on TSS to say that it had happened. This generated a large amount of interest, and within two days the ensuing discussion had grown considerably.

    Then Dion Almaer posted his report on the meeting, which captured the collaborative spirit of the occasion very well and headlined the most important new features. Once more, ardent discussion with participation from a broad spectrum of pro-JDO, anti-JDO and JDO-neutral posters. (Looking through the subject lines of that thread, though, the messages had very little to do with the actual features for JDO 2.0).

    Then, after a week, Craig Russell posted the formal minutes of the meeting. This summary was concise (not a blow-by-blow account). Admittedly it was not written to enthral the reader, but it represented the core content agreed for JDO 2.0 in more technical detail than Dion's report, and included comment on items which were excluded as well as those included.

    Nothing. Not a sausage. No significant support, no significant criticism, not even a comment on the weather. And it's been a week!

    Yes, it is indeed intriguing....
  9. JDO marketing[ Go to top ]

    Nothing. Not a sausage. No significant support, no significant criticism, not even a comment on the weather. And it's been a week!

    >

    OK, here's one. I did not see any reference in the minutes to JSR 175 (metadata in java). Is the use of metadata under consideration for JDO?

    -Chris
  10. Java Attributes[ Go to top ]

    Hi Chris

    The concept of "Java Attributes" has been mentioned, but largely in passing. I believe this is with reference to JSR-175. As far as I can see there is no pan to exploit JSR-175 in the scope of the JDO 2.0 standard.

    This is in direct contrast to JSR-14, Java Generics. The group is actively working to make sure that generics can be exploited if you happen to be running on a JDK 1.5 platform, without actually requiring that you do run on JDK 1.5.

    I don't have experience or specific knowledge of JSR-175. Off-hand I'm not sure which of the JDO expert group members would have, so this is an area where further input from the community might be useful.

    How would you anticipate this area affecting JDO? Do you see scope for reducing the content of the persistence descriptor in favour of metadata carried in the source code itself? Doing so might reduce the extent to which persistence can be applied transparently to an already written and compiled class, the source code of which may not be available.

    Kind regards, Robin.
  11. Java Attributes[ Go to top ]

    Do you see scope for reducing the content of the persistence descriptor in favour of metadata carried in the source code itself?


    Yes.

    < Doing so might reduce the extent to which persistence can be applied transparently to an already written and compiled class, the source code of which may not be available.

    Just curious, who in the JDO community is persisting already written and compiled classes with no source code available? My unscientific guess would be that a much larger number of people are writing their own persistent classes from scratch, or are reverse engineering classes from an existing relational schema. JDO users, how are you using JDO?

    -Chris
  12. Java Attributes[ Go to top ]

    I hope other JDO users will reply. My consulting experience is that JDO users are building and persisting domain objects from within the same team, so source code has always been available.