Re: ODB (Cache?) vs ORM

From: Luke Webber (luke_at_webber.com.au)
Date: 03/09/05

  • Next message: Robert Klemme: "Re: simple persistence without databases" 
    Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:54:17 +1100

    Lee Fesperman wrote:
    > Luke Webber wrote:
    >
    >>I've recently been studying Hibernate with a view to using it for future
    >>application development, but I must say that I've found the whole
    >>experience quite disenchanting. The need to maintain all that additional
    >>XML configuration info adds a fair bit of overhead to the development
    >>cycle, and the traditional SQL model is pissing me off as well. It's
    >>tired and overly complicated.
    >
    >
    > You're tired. Take a nap.

    I'm not above taking a nap, or even a cold shower, but nothing is
    working. <g>

    Seriously, an ORM is supposed to obviate the gulf between the relational
    and object models, and hopefully to make the life of an OO programmer
    simpler by handling tasks like caching, concurrency control and all the
    many SQL nasties. But for me, Hibernate is turning out to be a lot more
    work for relatively little benefit.

    I decided some time ago that ODBs had failed to live up to their
    promise, but it looks like one DBMS has flowered from a MUMPS
    post-relational product into a fully-fledged and extremely capable ODB.
    I'm just looking for other Java programmers who have migrated to an ODB.

    Luke

  • Next message: Robert Klemme: "Re: simple persistence without databases"