If I may, I think just changing the phrasing to something like :
Persistence managers that store the item states in a complex schema are not the
best option for most users.
Regards,
Serge Huber.
ps : my schema is not that complex :) And I will probably in later version
adopt something similar to Edgar's JDBC schema (with one table per property
type).
Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
hi edgar
first of all thanks for this very informative and usefull FAQ.
i only have one comment:
=== What about ORM-backed PMs? ===
Persistence managers that store the item states in a complex schema are not the
right
way to go. Keep it simple, e.g. the objectPersistenceManager stores the item
states as
a raw stream of bytes.
i remember having said something like that in a previous thread. this
is my very personal
view and allthough i still think it is correct i'd rather like to have
it understood as a recommendation, not an absolute statement. what do
you think?
thanks
stefan
