More on ORM's

djberg96 on 2004-07-12T21:09:54

If Hibernate is a lightweight solution, I'd hate to see what the heavyweight solution was. It's still a morass of config files and libs to me.

Now compare that with Active Record or Class::DBI, though I'm not entirely certain what Hibernate can do that either of those cannot.

---

The Advantages of Java

chromatic on 2004-07-12T23:11:42

Obviously, it's more scalable, for definitions of the word that include nothing more serious than hand-waving.

the "compared to"...

lachoy on 2004-07-13T15:11:51

...is Entity EJBs. If you've been exposed to them (I hope not) then you'll agree that Hibernate is far, far lighter weight.

Plus the Java community seems to use "lightweight" when referring to systems that manipulate Plain Old Java Objects (POJOs, since Martin Fowler felt they deserved an acronym). That's a useful distinction but overloading "lightweight" to do it probably isn't the best implementation.

Hibernate has many more features

perrin on 2004-07-13T17:43:09

I like Class::DBI, and use it, but Hibernate can map much more complex table relationships and handle a whole range of operations that you can't currently do in Class::DBI without resorting to writing the SQL in your objects. It also generates very tight SQL which you would be hard-pressed to beat by hand.

Re:Hibernate has many more features

djberg96 on 2004-07-17T15:46:29

What about Maypole, then? I haven't really looked at it too much yet, but it looks promising.

Re:Hibernate has many more features

perrin on 2004-07-21T16:07:43

Maypole just uses Class::DBI.