Pasted from an email thread between Werner and me:
> PS Any views on the Castor - Spring integration yet ?
The patch contains a LOT of tabs .
I'm guessing that this patch was created against the Spring HEAD, correct?
But seriously, here are some thoughts:
1) Please stop putting the Intalio copyright on any newly written
classes. If you wrote it, put your name in the copyright notice. As
others as code, they should add their name to the copyright notice.
Also make sure that the copyright year is correct. I see you've pasted
1999 in all of the new classes. Also, the TestLocalCastorFactoryBean
class has a SPARDAT copyright on it.
This topic leads directly into the topics of the Intalio copyrights
already in existence on the code and the exolab name in the code.
Sooner or later, we need to get these two items worked out. I'll speak
to my friend David Blevins about how he handled this with Intalio for
OpenEJB. I'll get back to you with my results.
2) Javadocs in CastorCallback reference a PersistenceManager object.
This is from the JDO 2.0 APIs and shouldn't be referenced in our code.
Replace this with the appropriate Castor classes (i.e. JDOManager).
3) A more thorough set of tests are needed before this patch can be
submitted to the Spring project. I believe that mocks would be a good
route to take. I've used EasyMock quite a lot, maybe I can take a stab
at writing these soon.
BTW, great work, Werner. I'm very happy to see this integration happening.