Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx02.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Arved Sandstrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: J2EE References: <521fc2b1$0$300$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <522159b8$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <52229aee$0$299$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 51 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroups-download.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:09:14 UTC Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 17:09:13 -0300 X-Received-Bytes: 3121 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25200 On 09/01/2013 09:48 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:39:57 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 8/31/2013 6:58 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 22:49:26 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>> Most of JDBC has always been in SE. >>>> >>>> Things that in early days should have been in SE but ended up in EE: >>>> * mail client * web service client * ORM >>>> >>>> Things that in later days has been properly put in SE: >>>> * web service client * JMX >>>> >>> FWIW, I mainly use SE Java to write the sort of stuff I'd formerly do >>> in C, i.e. to get more portability and to take advantage of the larger >>> standard class library and Swing and friends. The only stuff I've >>> needed that hasn't been in SE was javamail >> >> Web service client and database ORM seems natural in SE context to me. >> You have not had the need for them, but I think many must have. >> > Fair comment. > > I haven't needed Web Service yet, though that doesn't mean that I won't > need it, especially if it can be used to distribute Java applications > rather than applets. I've nothing against the latter, or wouldn't if > browser behaviour was a bit more consistent and reliable when running > them. > > I've written a lot of SQL in the past and am happy to use it directly via > JDBC, so encapsulating that in a class seems more natural to me than > using the database ORM, but ymmv. > > There's a grey area between using JDBC directly, or using JPA. Sometimes - legitimately - the data in your relational DB may just not map well to objects, ORM or no ORM. Maybe you just need three coums out of some godawful table that is seriously non-relational. JDBC is good for that. OTOH, the JDBC API wastes my time. I don't mean that it's bad, I mean that it's relatively low level. Compared to JPA I just have to spend more of my time getting and modifying data than I do with JPA. This is the whole point of an ORM solution. AHS -- When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift