[Registry-dev] Persistence registry - Implementation options

[Paul Fremantle]

The only junk that Hibernate adds is a simple Long index to each table. 
I can't speak for OpenJPA as I haven't looked at the tables it generates 
yet.

Paul

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Why do we need an ORM? All we're storing in the database is simple 
> metadata about resources. The resources themselves are in the filesystem!
> 
> I have another reason for being opposed to it .. I'd like to (in the 
> future) write another impl of this registry in pure Python and have it 
> be able to go against the same file system and database tables. Bring 
> some Java ORM thing in and there'll be other junk in the DB tables for 
> sure.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>> I suggest we take a quick look at OpenJPA - the fact its 
>> plug-replaceable by Hibernate (using the JPA API) and also ASL seem 
>> good points.
>>
>> Anyone got time to do a quick review?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Afkham Azeez wrote:
>>> I strongly feel that we need to use some sort of ORM. These take care 
>>> of problems with SQL specific to DBMSs, SQL injection attacks, 
>>> ability to do data manipulation stuff within transactions, escaping 
>>> special SQL characters etc. If we are to use SQL+JDBC, we will have 
>>> to handle all of these.
>>>
>>> One other advantage is that it is very easy to switch between 
>>> different DBMSs. You need not have different SQL scripts for creation 
>>> of the DB, Tables etc. e.g. in WSAS, we simply maintain the mapping 
>>> file. It was very easy to switch from Derby to MySQL, Postgres or any 
>>> other DB since Hibernate takes care of creating the necessary stuff.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Azeez
>>>
>>>
>>> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>>> I'm -1 on Hibernate. Let's just do SQL + JDBC .. that'll make it 
>>>> easier to do a good search API too.
>>>>
>>>> We should be storing fairly simple structured info in the database 
>>>> tables- I really don't see a need to use an ORM tool.
>>>>
>>>> Sanjiva.
>>>>
>>>> Chathura C. Ekanayake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have implemented the persistence registry for the previous 
>>>>> requirements
>>>>> (i.e. with version control, links, etc.) using hibernate. But as we 
>>>>> are going to
>>>>> cut down most of those features in 0.1 release, I have to rewrite 
>>>>> some of the
>>>>> code. So it is easier if we finalize on the database implementation 
>>>>> at this
>>>>> stage.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are having following options:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hibernate
>>>>> Plain SQL + JDBC
>>>>> Apache iBATIS
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have already implemented it using hibernate, it is easier to 
>>>>> modify
>>>>> it to the new requirements, if we continue to use hibernate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Chathura
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Registry-dev mailing list
>>>>> Registry-dev at wso2.org
>>>>> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Registry-dev mailing list
>>> Registry-dev at wso2.org
>>> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

Office: +1 646 290 8050
Cell: +44 798 447 4618

blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
paul at wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com