Hi Carl,
I think that Hibernate (like any framework) has its place. It gets mocked
probably more because of the countless abuses of it by developers who
haven't quite understood it properly ("I can do foobar.save(); that is all
I need to know").
Cheers,
Martijn
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011, Carl Jokl <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
--
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.
