On 21 December 2011 14:13, Carl Jokl <[email protected]> wrote: > Was that the project that was mentioned in a lighting talk at the London > JUG by any chance or a different one?
I presented it in a lightning talk at the LJC Open Conference, if that's the same JUG meetup, then that was me :) > I could see a benefit for immutable object for those that live in a > Servlet container session cache especially if the web container could > be clustered and everything in the Session needs to be replicated across > servers. The mutable versions would play nicely with an ORM. > > At this point I am not using any ORM and there are no domain objects at > all in the system apart from some demonstration ones I created. I have been > demoing with plain JDBC population (which is tedious) but it avoid having > to add a dependency on the persistence API at this stage (though the > mutable objects are ripe for modification in the future to add ORM > annotations to them. > > At this point the work I have done may not go anywhere as the use of > domain objects has not been well received so far. > To be honest, if I had a greenfield opportunity, I don't know if I would pick an ORM. In my (admittedly limited) experience, ORM has caused as much pain as it has saved us from, but I wasn't around to experience the codebase without it, so it may be a 'greener grass' kind of thing. Also, if you're exclusively going to be mapping to objects, relational database may be the wrong choice, and it may be worth considering a nosql option. But, since you're having trouble convincing your team just to model the domain properly, nosql isn't likely to go down well. HTH, Graham -- 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.
