Comment Re:fud again? (Score 1) 165
> For the record, I have no issues with JDO other than the byte code mangler.
For the record, there is nothing about the JDO spec that requires a bytecode [mangler|enhancer]. There is even a free source-code enhancer available, bundled with Sun's reference implementation.
The JDO spec is written such that any compliant implementation can work with any class that implements javax.jdo.spi.PersistenceCapable. One route to making your class implement this interface is to post-process (relative to initial compilation) the bytecodes with a tool. Another is to pre-processthe source code with a tool. A third is to manually implement the PersistenceCapable interface. Further ways to implement this interface are left as an exercise for the reader.
(Most vendors do not ship with a source-code enhancer, as Sun has already written one. However, due to licensing restrictions on the reference implementation, it is not legal for a vendor to ship with Sun's RI. This does not prevent you from using it, etc. etc. etc.)
-Patrick
For the record, there is nothing about the JDO spec that requires a bytecode [mangler|enhancer]. There is even a free source-code enhancer available, bundled with Sun's reference implementation.
The JDO spec is written such that any compliant implementation can work with any class that implements javax.jdo.spi.PersistenceCapable. One route to making your class implement this interface is to post-process (relative to initial compilation) the bytecodes with a tool. Another is to pre-processthe source code with a tool. A third is to manually implement the PersistenceCapable interface. Further ways to implement this interface are left as an exercise for the reader.
(Most vendors do not ship with a source-code enhancer, as Sun has already written one. However, due to licensing restrictions on the reference implementation, it is not legal for a vendor to ship with Sun's RI. This does not prevent you from using it, etc. etc. etc.)
-Patrick
