Le 09-11-16 à 07:47, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <[email protected]
> wrote:
...I see the point for DAOs only when you really want to be sure that
application coders can only use the properties you designed for them.
Or when you have a relational model and are required to map it onto
an
object model, but that's not the case with JCR. An OCM only adds an
additional layer of code and complexity....
+1
Maybe David's model [1] needs Rule #8: don't use JCR-to-object
mappings unless you really really have to ;-)
I would not agree on this one. I found JCR very pertinent as a
replacement for Object databases. I am mixing the two concepts to fit
all my needs.
I think JCR+OCM is perfect for rapid development. The only complexity
it adds is on performances, I found the code to be more readable with
OCM.
Maybe I do not have much experience with "low-level" JCR programming,
but the problem with manipulating nodes is that you get all kind of
variables which you never know how to name (parentNode, node,
subNode[], nodeToDelete, newNode, etc.) and it becomes unreadable and
when your code gets bigger. I found myObject.save() to be
straightforward and clean.
-Bertrand
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/DavidsModel
