persistence / object backend to file / serialization
in [Java Programming]
|
From: luc peuvrier on 1 Feb 2010 13:35 On Jan 31, 1:58 pm, Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Roedy Green wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:47:02 -0800 (PST), luc peuvrier > > <lcp...(a)gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said > > : > > >>http://joafip.sourceforge.net/ > >> can be see as a: > >> - an "intelligent" serialization: write only changes, read only object > >> needed > >> - manage more object than memory can contains > >> - an alternate persistence solution to relationnal database > > > It is one of a class of programs called PODs. See > >http://mindprod.com/jgloss/pod.html > > > Jaofip seems to be the liveliest right now. For reasons I do not > > understand, interest in them has dropped. > > > Programming with them is almost like having a multi terrabyte RAM > > machine that never loses power and the app never terminates. > > Not to comment on the mentioned implementation (I've never used it), but > I'd like to point out that persistence providers like EclipseLink have > put a lot of effort into doing "intelligent" serialization as described > above. It's part of their bread and butter. > > AHS- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - And it exists a plenty of persistence implementations. The joafip goal was to write a full object data model without take care of memory amount, the object graph is derecitly backend to file. Luc
From: Lew on 1 Feb 2010 16:41 luc peuvrier wrote: > Hi Tom [sic], > > I do not think reinvented JDO. If you like JDO and well know it I will > be happy you compare the JOAFIP and JDO facade. Shouldn't that be your job as the spammer for the JOAFIP project, not tom's? Burden of proof is on you. Il est votre devoir. -- Lew
From: Roedy Green on 1 Feb 2010 17:03 On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:41:52 -0500, Lew <noone(a)lewscanon.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >e spammer for the JOAFIP project, SPAM implies: 1. commercial motive 2. posting repeatedly 3. posting in places inappropriate to discuss a project 4. refusing to engage in ensuing discussions. None of that has happened. We have a simple product announcement which is completely appropriate given the demise of the announcements topic. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. ~ Pablo Picasso (born: 1881-10-25 died: 1973-04-08 at age: 91)
From: luc peuvrier on 1 Feb 2010 20:38 On Feb 1, 11:03 pm, Roedy Green <see_webs...(a)mindprod.com.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:41:52 -0500, Lew <no...(a)lewscanon.com> wrote, > quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > > >e spammer for the JOAFIP project, > > SPAM implies: > > 1. commercial motive > > 2. posting repeatedly > > 3. posting in places inappropriate to discuss a project > > 4. refusing to engage in ensuing discussions. > > None of that has happened. We have a simple product announcement which > is completely appropriate given the demise of the announcements topic. > -- > Roedy Green Canadian Mind Productshttp://mindprod.com > Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. > ~ Pablo Picasso (born: 1881-10-25 died: 1973-04-08 at age: 91) Thank for this reply. Topic is not joafip, but is about the family of solutions like joafip. First goal is to annouce joafip, but also to have an open discution on alternatives solutions to easily manage more object than memory can contains. I will be happy to gain some new user, but also to have comparison with alternative, I am not saying joafip is the best solution, but that it is a solution: each solutions have advantages or disadvantages according to a project context or to needs. Luc
From: Lew on 1 Feb 2010 20:56
Roedy Green wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:41:52 -0500, Lew <noone(a)lewscanon.com> wrote, > quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >> e spammer for the JOAFIP project, > > SPAM implies: "SPAM" in all upper-case letters is a trademark of Hormel foods for their canned pork product. "Spam" in lower or mixed case is the topic. > > 1. commercial motive > > 2. posting repeatedly > > 3. posting in places inappropriate to discuss a project > > 4. refusing to engage in ensuing discussions. > > None of that has happened. We have a simple product announcement which > is completely appropriate given the demise of the announcements topic. Whatever. -- Lew |