Slashdot Mirror

Michael Yuan writes "Enterprise JavaBean (EJB) is one of the most widely used technologies in enterprise Java. It is designed to be a scalable and flexible distributed framework. In EJB, almost everything can be done in several different ways and it offers the developer the maximum flexibility to choose the right approach for the project in hand." Yuan provides a review, below, of Bitter EJB, to guide programmers interested in large-scale Java development. Update: 10/27 18:27 GMT by T : Peter Wayner provides a somewhat deeper look at the book as well, also below. Bitter EJB author Bruce Tate, Mike Clark, Bob Lee, Patrick Linskey pages 412 publisher Manning rating 9 reviewer Michael Yuan, Peter Wayner ISBN 1930110952 summary Anti-patterns in Enterprise JavaBean development

However, every coin has two sides: the other side of "freedom of choice" is "complexity". Although EJB is an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of experience architects, it is subject to a lot of misuse by novice developers who do not make sound choices. For example, some developers might use a BMP entity bean to map each database table in the system; or access entity beans directly from a distributed layer; or store large amount of data in session objects ... The list goes on. Although those approaches are technically possible, they are hardly the most efficient ways in most cases. Such problems have not only caused many projects to fail but also tarnished EJB's reputation. In fact, the complexity of EJB is often quoted as an argument for other enterprise platforms.

For EJB developers, it is crucial to learn from other people's experiences and follow proven best practices. That helps to reduce the complexity of the platform. Manning's "Bitter EJB" is a very timely book written by well-known experts in the EJB field: Bruce Tate, Mike Clark, Bob Lee and Patrick Linskey. Unlike other "architectural" books, Bitter EJB teaches best practices through common mistakes (anti-patterns). It focuses on "what not to do" but still encourages developers to come up with liberal (everything not forbidden is OK) and innovative solutions. After all, EJB is about flexibility and freedom of choices.

Part I of the book is an overview of anti-patterns in the EJB specification. The EJB specification itself has several major design problems when it first came out in March 1998. EJB v1.1 and v2.0 have gone great length to fix the anti-patterns in the specification. But early adopters may have already developed some anti-patterns in their applications. For new developers, the history also serves as a valuable lesson on what EJB is really for and how different components in the specification fall into their current places. In this part, the authors also provide an excellent recount on what went wrong in the high profile TSS Java PetStore benchmark.

Part II is about session and message-driven beans. Those beans are mainly used in the integration layers. Topics covered in this part include how to deal with large database results, whether to maintain session states, the limitations of XML and much more.

Part III covers EJB persistence. Entity EJBs are probably the most confusing types of components. Many experts have advocated to abolish entity EJBs altogether in favor of other simpler persistence frameworks such as the JDO or even simple JDBC facades. The authors discuss the pros and cons of entity EJBs and covers most leading alternatives. For those who must use entity EJBs, this book also offers useful advices on a range of topics including how to reduce round trips, shorten primary keys and handle expensive database joins etc.

Part IV covers broader topics including performance tuning, testing, building and packaging. One big problem that even EJB developer can recognize the complex deployment descriptors. One chapter of the book is dedicated to reduce code duplication, automate the deployment process and avoid the "integration hell". The last chapter of the book provides an overview of "what's next" in the EJB space.

Overall, it is an excellent book for all EJB developers and other enterprise developers who want to learn from the successes and failures of EJBs."

Peter Wayner's review:

Although there may be as many 36 plots in all of literature, the compartively new world of computer books has really had only one: this new technology is simple, very simple, and it will make your life better and your teeth whiter. Bruce Tate opened up a second plot in his book Bitter Java by exploring just how even the best programming ideas have dark sides. Now he's back with three other authors exploring the world of Bitter EJB.

This book is more fruit from the same tree. Or, to hack the Java MemeStream even more, more beans for the same mill. If you use Enterprise Java Beans (EJB), or think about using them, you should read this book to see what can go wrong. The title shows how naming schemes can be misleading because either the authors aren't really that bitter, or because they're focused entirely on EJBs. This book does not belong in the same camp with the Java==SUV crowd. These authors are really admirers who just want to warn people how to avoid problems with Java and EJB.

Tate and his new co-authors, Mike Clark, Bob Lee, and Patrick Linskey are all consultants who seem to use Java a lot, at least when they're not cheating death. One of the cuter grace notes in the book is a collection of war stories from extreme sports that are mixed in as an allegorical taste of what's to come. Before exploring the problems with a Java concept known as enterprise beans, they tell a kayaking story that ends with the sentence, "Then we hear a loud crunch and look up to see Eric's stern stationary at the top of the drop, revealing the sitaution that every kayaker dreads the most -- the vertical pin."

After stories like this, the book goes on to explore just how the very fancy enterprise beans toolkit can produce an application that moves slower than a stream filled with honey. Each chapter is filled with antipatterns, or lessons about the software learned the hard way. They're sort of like points on the map that say, "There be dragons here."

The book is divided into four parts. The first section, termed "The Basics," explores the simple ways that EJB technology goes bad. The toolkit was heavily hyped as the perfect solution for building business websites that interface seamlessly with large databases. As the business grew, new servers could be added without grief. Alas, as this section points out, there are many reasons why an elephant gun can be the wrong weapon for getting rid of mice in your house.

The next section on "Networks and Messages" describes how good ideas can turn into slow code when people misuse the fancy tools for scaling EJBs. In theory, the EJB toolkit will split up processes simply across multiple machines to handle more customers, but in practice all of the communication can slow things down considerably.
The section on "EJB Persistence" describes how the much-hyped system for seamlessly storing away enterprise beans in databases can weigh down a system. My only beef is that they left out much information on Prevayler, a much-maligned and misunderstood ultra-light toolkit that is like an anti-EJB persistence layer in every possible way. I'm enamored with it, if only because it's such a radical move away from the monolithic APIs like EJBs. While they liken using EJBs to snowboarding in fresh powder with a 100lb pack on your back, Prevayler is sort of like boots-only hiking.


The last section isn't about EJBs per se, but similar toolkits and projects that often get used with EJB. There are antipatterns to avoid with JUnitPref and Ant, too. Some of these suggestions, like some in the rest of the book, aren't terribly new or brillant, but it can't hurt to get another lecture on the importance of testing your code.

The book shines when it's exploring what goes on behind the slick facade of the API. Sure, the EJB toolkit will dutifully load up data from any object on any server in your farm, but you better be careful invoking some of these these methods because the network is slow. The book often points out how invoking that one simple method from the sales literature can start up dozens of sluggish threads. Peeling away the layers helps understand and explain why the system fails.

Many of these lessons aren't limited to Java or EJB. I wouldn't be surprised if the group of authors was busy rewriting the book with examples from .NET. Unfortunately, some programming problems are very hard, and building a toolkit with a simple API won't make them go away. In fact, the simple appearance can cause more trouble when the programmer can't understand what the secret mechanism inside is doing. Almost all of the problems in this book arise from programmers who believe the sales literature when it tells them not to pay attention to what that little bot behind the curtain is doing. If you're working in the world of EJB consulting on big iron, then you've got no choice but to start thinking about what's behind that curtain.

You can purchase the Bitter EJB from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. Peter Wayner is the author of 13 books including Java RAMBO Manifesto and Translucent Databases.

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

ninejaguar asks: "Slashdot did an article on an Open Source product called Prevayler, which could theoretically resolve all the problems associated with OO's rough courtship with Relational databases. Slashdot covered Prevayler when it was still 1.x. Despite fear, doubt, and memory concerns, it has reached 2.0 alpha. Is anyone currently using this non-database solution in production? If so, has it sped development because of the lack of OO-to-RDBMS complexity? Was there a significant learning curve to speak of? The LGPL'd product could be incorporated into proprietary commercial software, and few might know about it. Is anyone considering using it in a transactional environment where speed is the paramount need? And, are there any objections to using Prevayler that haven't been answered at the Prevayler wiki? Would those who use MySQL find Prevayler to be a better solution because it's tiny (less than 100kb), 3000 times faster and is inherently ACID compliant?" Update: 09/24 19:25 GMT by C :Quite a few broken links, now fixed.

"We've used relational databases for years despite incompatibilities in SQL implementation. Accessing them from an OOP paradigm has been so tedious, that Object-Relational mapping technologies have sprouted all over the Open Source landscape. Some competing examples and models are Hibernate, OJB, TJDO, XORM, and Castor; which in turn have supporting frameworks such as Spring and SQLExecutor. Because SQL is the dominant form of interfacing with the data in an RDBMS, there's now a specification to offer it a friendlier OO face.

Most of the above, including the SQL-variants, arguably appear to add yet another layer of complexity (even if only at the integration level) where they should be taking complexity away. These solutions are put together by some very smart people, but it's inescapable to get that feeling someone is missing the forest (simple answer) because all the trees (incompatible models) are in the way. If there are so many after-the-fact solutions attempting to simplify relational database access and manipulation from OO, isn't it reasonable to think that there is something generally wrong with trying to cobble-together two disparate concepts with what are essentially high-caliber hacks? Is Prevayler a better way?"

A reader writes:" Persistence for object-oriented systems is an incredibly cumbersome task to deal with when building many kinds of applications: mapping objects to tables, XML, flat files or use some other non-OO way to represent data destroys encapsulation completely, and is generally slow, both at development and at runtime. The Object Prevalence concept, developed by the Prevayler team, and implemented in Java, C#, Smalltalk, Python, Perl, PHP, Ruby and Delphi, can be a great a solution to this mess. The concept is pretty simple: keep all the objects in RAM and serialize the commands that change those objects, optionally saving the whole system to disk every now and then (late at night, for example). This architecture results in query speeds that many people won't believe until they see for themselves: some benchmarks point out that it's 9000 times faster than a fully-cached-in-RAM Oracle database, for example. Good thing is: they can see it for themselves. Here's an article about it, in case you want to learn more."

A reader writes:" Persistence for object-oriented systems is an incredibly cumbersome task to deal with when building many kinds of applications: mapping objects to tables, XML, flat files or use some other non-OO way to represent data destroys encapsulation completely, and is generally slow, both at development and at runtime. The Object Prevalence concept, developed by the Prevayler team, and implemented in Java, C#, Smalltalk, Python, Perl, PHP, Ruby and Delphi, can be a great a solution to this mess. The concept is pretty simple: keep all the objects in RAM and serialize the commands that change those objects, optionally saving the whole system to disk every now and then (late at night, for example). This architecture results in query speeds that many people won't believe until they see for themselves: some benchmarks point out that it's 9000 times faster than a fully-cached-in-RAM Oracle database, for example. Good thing is: they can see it for themselves. Here's an article about it, in case you want to learn more."

A reader writes:" Persistence for object-oriented systems is an incredibly cumbersome task to deal with when building many kinds of applications: mapping objects to tables, XML, flat files or use some other non-OO way to represent data destroys encapsulation completely, and is generally slow, both at development and at runtime. The Object Prevalence concept, developed by the Prevayler team, and implemented in Java, C#, Smalltalk, Python, Perl, PHP, Ruby and Delphi, can be a great a solution to this mess. The concept is pretty simple: keep all the objects in RAM and serialize the commands that change those objects, optionally saving the whole system to disk every now and then (late at night, for example). This architecture results in query speeds that many people won't believe until they see for themselves: some benchmarks point out that it's 9000 times faster than a fully-cached-in-RAM Oracle database, for example. Good thing is: they can see it for themselves. Here's an article about it, in case you want to learn more."