My interpretation of FDS/LCDS is that it is not so much about performance and scalability (although its characteristics are not bad) but more about making your code simpler and thereby more robust/manageable/bug free. If you have a good dev team and a good design for the data architecture of your app then it's value lies more in that direction than it does in performance and scalability.
It is a classic architectural trade-off between a packaged, reliable, possibly immediate, but somewhat imperfectly fitting solution versus making something which fits perfectly your problem but may be more difficult to write and involve more thinking. I'm going to make the bold and contentious statement that you will have to roll your own to squeeze really staggering performance and scalability out of your app. That's not a criticism of FDS/LCDS, more a statement of the fact that you can optimise the bejesus out of your own code and that's the only real way to get there. I suspect you are going to have more issues with (and potential for adjustment of) performance and scalability between Hibernate and your physical database schema than you are between your semantic layer and the client. If you really want to make sure you obviate possible performance and scalability issues you should start with your data model rather than an intermediate tier in your architecture. Get database reads, writes and updates really fast and it won't matter so much what you put above it. I would also encourage you to look at alternative ORM's (if you haven't already), not because Hibernate is bad, but because there are other things that are every bit as good and may suit you better. Hibernate is often as far as people get when looking. We eventually switched to iBatis because it fitted our schema far better than Hibernate could. --- In [email protected], "pradhasan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for the update. I guess my question is not presented in > correct way. Here I am explaining it. I want to know which one is > better from the following options. > 1) Flex Data Services(FDS) directly communicating with DMS. (2-tier > architecture) > 2) FDS communicating with Hibernate using RemoteObject service. > (server side model - three tier architecture). > > The parameters we are looking in the above two options are > performance & scalability. > > Thanks, > --- In [email protected], "Seth Hodgson" <shodgson@> > wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what you're asking. The Data Management Service in > LCDS relies on an adapter layer to integrate into your backend. If > your backend is a raw database, you may want to use the SQLAssembler > for a quick prototype. If you have a Java domain model that uses > Hibernate for persistence, use the HibernateAssembler. If you have > some other backend (say an XML database or an in-memory data model > accessed via a data grid API) you can write a custom assembler that > would expose it to the Data Management Service so that Flex clients > can interact with it simply and consistently using the client-side > DataService component. > > > > It's not a matter of "Data Management Services Vs Hibernate". The > Data Management Service is just providing a nice client-server API > for plugging clients in to your backend data, which may or may not > involve Hibernate. > > > > I'd recommend focusing on the server-side programming model you > want to use for managing your data, and go from there. You'd have > more opportunities for tuning (caching, write policies, etc.) using > the HiberanteAssembler or a custom assembler than you have with the > SQLAssembler which executes raw, parameterized queries against your > database. > > > > Best, > > Seth > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pradhasan > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:29 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Hibernate.. > > > > In my Flex application with Weblogic appserver, which approach is > > better for performance and transactions. Flex Data Management > > Services Vs Hibernate. Apprecite your help. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Seth Hodgson" <shodgson@> > > wrote: > > > > > > If you have an existing server-side domain model and are using > > Hibernate use the HibernateAssembler. If you don't have any > current > > server-side code and just want to expose some tables in your > > database to clients use the SQLAssembler. > > > > > > It really comes down to whether it makes sense for your client > app > > to be interacting with database tables directly, or whether you > need > > be interacting with server-side Java classes. > > > > > > Hope that helps, > > > Seth > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pradhasan > > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 8:41 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [flexcoders] Hibernate.. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to know for large scale application which one is > > better > > > using HibernateAssembler or SQLAssembler in data-management- > > config.xml. > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > >
