Hi Craig,
On 7/31/2012 1:55 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 04:27 PM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Craig Ringer <ringerc_at_ringerc.id.au <mailto:ringerc_at_ringerc.id.au>> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/30/2012 09:51 PM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>>> Like you, more and more I think JSF should not have been into the Web Profile. But as we can see today, there are
>>> more and more applications with NoSQL architecture without JPA/JTA
>> Just a nit-pick: "NoSQL" in no way means that JTA is useless. XA transactions remain useful for any application
>> that needs to make atomic (or as-atomic-as-possible) changes to two or more data storage locations, at least one
>> of which is transactional.
>>
>> Similarly, JPA is by no stretch limited to SQL. EclipseLink for example is perfectly capable of querying a variety
>> of non-SQL datasources:
>>
>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/Examples/JPA/NoSQL
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes but that's not part of JPA (it's a proprietary feature)
>
> That's what I get for posting in a hurry. For some reason I was under the impression that EclipseLink fit its support
> within the JPA support, and I didn't read the page properly.
>
> What I was saying about JTA stands, but yeah, no such luck for "NoSQL" + JPA.
>
Well, "NoSQL" + JPA is definitely on our radar for consideration in a future release.
At the same time, however, we have been getting feedback that doing this now would be
premature.
BTW, when you say "NoSQL", which of the NoSQL*s* do you mean, or how do you envision
this standardization?
-Linda
> --
> Craig Ringer