In all seriousness though, is this how badly Hibernate is viewed these days? Having an ORM seemed to make sense to me and still does in theory. I know in practice I have hit plenty of obscure cases or problems in Hibernate but I am not sure I would throw it all out as a waste of time just yet and also it is not as if Hibernate is the only ORM around.
On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, Martijn Verburg <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't resist: Hibernate == Cake Mix -http://topsy.com/vimeo.com/28885655 > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On 21 December 2011 14:57, Graham Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. -- 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.
