On 15 July 2010 11:15, Moandji Ezana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM, twitter.com/nfma < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> A year ago I built an app without hibernate, just straight jdbc. Didn't >> have to know about hibernate interceptors and transformers and what not... >> the code was much easier to follow... I could cherry pick a lot better >> where, how and with what to cache and which strategies to use on locking... >> I used mostly immutable objects which also helped a lot on the rest of the >> code... > > > Did you find that you wrote a simpler object model? On Android, for > example, you have to write SQL, but you wouldn't want a really complex model > or schema on a phone, anyway (IMO). >
Yes, and it made us think a lot more on how, when and why the data was used. Our architecture also evolved in the direction of a CQRS architecture... > > I tend to do something similar on Google App Engine, by using the > low-level datastore rather than JPA or JDO. It's really not that bad, but > then, the datastore's put/get interface is a lot more natural for objects > than SQL. > It's a trade off. You're giving up database normalisation for simplicity and possibly scalability and performance. > > Moandji > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
