Geert Bevin wrote: > Hi John, > >> I have actually grown to loathe Hibernate, and would be keen to avoid >> using it again - most of the debugging time on the last couple of >> systems was on obscure Hibernate issues, for which the Hibernate >> forums were pretty well useless, as all answers from the Hibernate >> guys tended to be extremely terse 'RTFM' style ones. (Maybe if their >> error messages were not so
John, welcome to the club! I gave up on Hibernate in the 2.x days because of the attitude on the forums. I remember struggling for a long time trying to find an answer about support for interfaces and abstract classes without actually getting a straightforward answer. Since then, I've moved to JDO, JPOX to be more specific. Sometimes there is the terse "RTFM" style answers, but this is understandable since the development team is quite small. At least, JPOX follows the JDO specs and if you cannot get answers on the forums, there are still other JDO implementers from whom you can seek help. (I have actually written a tutorial on integrating JPOX with NetBeans.) > RIFE's database layer tries to do as little magic as possible, so a lot > of things are very intuitive. It does a lot less than Hibernate though, > we for instance don't have our own query language but use object > oriented query builders instead (they handle the DB SQL syntax > abstraction). There's also no support for table inheritance or > automatic population of collection properties. We do plan on adding > these in the future. [snipped] > We don't have this, but I plan on doing a lot more Spring integration > after the next release. I suppose this is part of their AOP support. > The closest that we currently have is something similar as Spring's > transactional template methods: http://rifers.org/wiki/display/RIFE/ > Chainable+transactions Whatever you do, please leave RIFE as a monolithic framework and do not start branching all over the place. RIFE has convinced me by its simplicity -- one JAR, one declaration in web.xml and that is it. >>> The thing I like most about Wicket is also the biggest flaw imho: >>> you do everything in Java in a similar fashion as Swing. During >>> the coding this is certainly very nice and you can write everything >>> here and now. However, when looking at code that someone else Same opinion here. Web site/application development should be a shared profession. Programmers write the processing code, designers create templates, and deployers write the XML declarations. >> While I haven't joined in with the mad stampede away from XML which >> seems to have been triggered by Ruby On Rails, I would say that >> having to read Java sources to work out how things relate doesn't >> particularly bother me. In common with many Java developers, I >> suspect, I find well-written code rather easier to read than XML. > > > Actually I was less talking about the syntax, but more about a > centralized point of declaration. If your entire data and logic flow is > specified in a site-structure, you almost instantly have an overview of > how your application behaves and which components are accessible. > Without this centralized declaration you have to search through your > entire code code-base to find where your area of interest is located. Geert, I am not trying to be negative, but when I first looked at RIFE, it reminded me of FuseActions (ColdFusion anyone?). Except that FuseActions was a pattern more than anything else. Still it has worked for ages and still works. > Coool! I'm actively looking into making X-develop more intelligent for > RIFE and provide code hyper-linking in between files. I just spent 2 > weeks with Eclipse exclusively to try it out thoroughly and I switched > back to X-develop today. I tried X-Develop, but did not like it. But then, I don't like Eclipse or IDEA either. I think the choice of IDE is very personal and there is no real good/bad. Eddy _______________________________________________ Rife-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users
