rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reintegration of MongoDB Branch
Date Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:17:42 GMT
On Sunday, January 6, 2013, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:

> On 6 January 2013 21:44, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Matt Franklin <
> m.ben.franklin@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Matt Franklin
> > >> <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > The MongoDb branch is about ready to be re-integrated into trunk.
 I
> > >> > am currently going through and fixing merge conflicts caused by the
> > >> > model-interface split.  Currently, the only changes to the current
> > >> > working code are some application context improvements and
> additional
> > >> > configuration attributes.  In order to ensure that the jpa & mongo
> > >> > modules were swappable, I tried to isolate the changes as much as
> > >> > possible.  Because of this, I think the risk to trunk is pretty low.
> > >> >
> > >> > Assuming no objections, I will merge it back to trunk before the end
> > of
> > >> Monday.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, I forgot Monday was New Year's eve.  I have completed all
> > >> of the work now and committed the branch back to trunk.
> > >>
> > >> The vast majority of changes are isolated into the rave-mongodb
> > >> project.  I did add new build profiles for rave-portal and rave-portal
> > >> resources so that the entire rave-project can be built with MongoDB as
> > >> the default persistence provider.  However, the default profile is JPA
> > >> and the rave-portal & rave-portal-resources releases will still be
set
> > >> for JPA persistence.
> > >>
> > >> I tested a clean build of the JPA version of rave and saw no issues
> > >> with the merged code.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Matt, quick question for you. I noticed that the group table
> (collection)
> > > doesn't just contain a list of user IDs but instead contains complete
> > user
> > > objects. What happens if the user object stored in the group and the
> user
> > > object stored in the users table get out of sync? Can that be
> simplified
> > to
> > > just store the IDs?
> >
> > Yes, it should be.  I will create a JIRA ticket.
> >
> > >
> > > Have you done any tests using multiple providers for different
> entities?
> > > For example using Mongo for Users but JPA for Pages? The model split
> > should
> > > allow that but I don't know if the providers will allow for that.
> >
> > No, but doing this and documenting is important.
> >
>
> We also should find a more elegant solution than building multiple modules
> with the mongodb profile to use MongoDb, but I haven't found a clean
> solution yet.


+1.  I think we need to work a lot harder on making sure we have clean
abstractions


>
>
> > >
> > > Can't wait to try this out!
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message