Re: Hibernate and Oracle
- From: "Alberto Dell'Era" <alberto.dellera@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: robertgfreeman@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:26:02 +0100
On 2/10/07, Robert Freeman wrote:
(SNIP)
We changed our approach to modeling by allowing them to design their classes
and generate database DDL based on those classes. I'll admit that I was not
100% happy with that change, and the DDL generated had a lot of problems and
we made a lot of changes (mostly naming, adding FK's, NULL requirements,
indexes and so on). We found that model was not far from what we modeled at
the outset, but it really seemed to eliminate some of the initial
object/database confusion that follows Java to Physical design around. The
Jury is still out on this approach as far as I'm concerned, but I have been
moved to believe that it's not a stupid thing.
Well, if you work with good Java "architects", that can produce a sound
design (simple and intuitive), for sure that design, once persisted as
a bunch of tables, will be sound (simple and intuitive) as well.
But persistence has to be considered right from the start of the
design phase. For example, many Java people would be tempted
to design a Customer as a class containing NameSurname,
Address, IdentificationCredentials, the latter containing one of
Passport, IdCard, LicenseToDrive, instead of a simple flat class
containing only numbers and strings ... once persisted, each
class will map to a table, with obvious performance implications;
even if the design is reasonably simple and intuitive.
It takes a Java guy versed in Oracle, or a design team composed
of (collaborating) Java and Oracle subteams, to avoid this and
similar pitfalls. But then the team will be using traditional
relational design techniques essentially ... for both the tables
and the Java classes.
Thanks for your chiming in :)
Alberto
--
Alberto Dell'Era
"Per aspera ad astra"
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
