[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Has anyone looked at GOODS?

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Nils Hartmann wrote:
> Timothy Reaves wrote:
> > 
> >     I was wanting to know if anyone here has looked at GOODS.
> > http://www.ispras.ru/~knizhnik/goods.html
> > If so, any comparison to Ozone would be appreciated.  I'm interested in
> > a functionality or usabiliy comparison.
> Hello,
> it's a few month ago, I've looked at GOODS, not sure if something
> happend since then. GOODS is - in contrast to Ozone - written in C++ and
> only Java-API is - of course - in Java.
> I think from it's architecture it looks quite nice, since there is a
> possibility to have more then one server sharing the objects etc. GOODS
> uses it's own "MOP" (Meta Object Processor) to postcompile Java-Binaries
> in order to make them "persistent capable". I had some problems using
> MOP in the beginning because the documentation is very small, and it
> seems buggy. 
> I think also the transactional behaviour is flexible, mechanism like
> pessismistic and optimistic locking are supported, also distributed TAs
> over more than one server. But nevertheless GOODS didn't implement
> XA-interfacesses.
> In contrast to ozone GOODS only uses exactly *one* named root object.
> >From this root all your persistent objects must be reachable (for
> example by storing them in Vectors, Hashtables etc). That is not so bad,
> one can live with. To create persistent objects you'll can use the
> normal "new" operator of Java language, there is no CreateObject method
> as in ozone (only for creating and getting the root-Object). On the
> other hand GOODS won't execute java-objects on serverside. Propably -
> I'm not sure - it's possible to share Java and C++ objects.
> 
> Summary: after having some trouble with building and setting up GOODS it
> was very easy to build a small demo applications using Servlets and XML
> (notice that there is NO XML support in GOODS). I switched to ozone
> because ozone is pure Java and can execute objects on server side... 
> I think both productes are great one's, especially because they help to
> make OODBMS popular and to forget RDBMS, O/R-Mapping, SELECT-statements
> and foreign keys ;-))))

Nils, I totally share your opinion about GOODS and ozone. The big
difference is that ozone executes database object code on the server side while
GOODS, like most (if not all) other OODBMSs, transfers the objects to the client
in order to activate them.


Falko
-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Falko Braeutigam                              mailto:falko@smb-tec.com
SMB GmbH                                        http://www.smb-tec.com