[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Architecture/design questions
Falko Braeutigam wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2001, Eric Richardson wrote:
> > Falko Braeutigam wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 07 Mar 2001, Eric Richardson wrote:
> > > > p.s. Ironically, I found out about ozone via an ODMG member. Maybe we
> > > > could list ozone here?
> > >
> > > Listing ozone at ODMG? Hmmm... I don't know. ozone's ODMG wrapper is not fully
> > > compliant. And because ODMG 3.0 and ozone follow different paradigms there is
> > > no chance to make it fully compliant IMO. Moreover, it seems that ODMG is almost
> > > dead anyway. They are focusing on JDO.
> >
> > I think you are probably right but many of the vendors aren't and have
> > never been fully compliant which is part of the reason for such slow
> > adoption of Objectbases. I think they don't use the word compliant for
> > products that aren't. PSE doesn't say anything about compliant so we may
> > consider it as it could bring more users etc.
> >
> > I haven't been following the work for the last year or so but Poet
> > Navajo was using ODMG as an embedded objectbase and David Jordon was
> > involved with this project and obviously the Java ODMG interfaces at the
> > company he works for-it's Ericson I think. I also had the opportunity to
> > talk to Rick Cattell as well and he was talking about persistence hooks
> > in the JVM. I don't know a thing about JDO but I'll take a look. My idea
> > was is they were gradually trying to make the Java Persistence and EJB
> > mapping closer to ODMG. One thing I can say for sure is that the common
> > goal is to use objects all the way and avoid the "object to relational
> > impedence mismatch".
>
> Who tries to reach this goal??? EJB is very RDBMS centric and earlier version
> of JDO was to RDBMS centric too. (last version of JDO seems to be better) So, to
> me it seems that people are absolutly fine with their big, complex and
> sometimes very slow O-R mapping machineries. Unfortunately EJB sets this in
> stone for the next years instead of taking the chance to make something new.
I really want to get away from the relational approach and I think the
big db vendors like oracle, ibm etc are driving these things on the Java
platform. Yes, the EJB entity bean approach is based on a relational
paradigm but I'd prefer not really to hash this all out. Let them do
what they want and let us learn and use their ideas if we can and if
none look good then we don't use it. A common interface is good but if
it doesn't do the job then I guess not using it is the best course.
Okay?
Eric :-)