锘??xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>中文字幕亚洲日韩无线码,亚洲av麻豆aⅴ无码电影,亚洲免费视频播放http://www2.blogjava.net/nelson_tu/category/825.htmlKeep it simple, Stupid, Less is morezh-cnWed, 28 Feb 2007 16:42:56 GMTWed, 28 Feb 2007 16:42:56 GMT60In search of a better persistence API[杞琞http://m.tkk7.com/nelson_tu/archive/2005/03/22/2306.htmlnelson_tunelson_tuTue, 22 Mar 2005 00:36:00 GMThttp://m.tkk7.com/nelson_tu/archive/2005/03/22/2306.htmlhttp://m.tkk7.com/nelson_tu/comments/2306.htmlhttp://m.tkk7.com/nelson_tu/archive/2005/03/22/2306.html#Feedback0http://m.tkk7.com/nelson_tu/comments/commentRss/2306.htmlhttp://m.tkk7.com/nelson_tu/services/trackbacks/2306.html20% Homegrown Persistence Framework 10% O/R Mapping Tools 5% Java Data Objects (JDO) 5% EJB CMP / BMP 0% Service Data Objects (SDO)
Considering that ORM only has 10% of the market, and "seldom is a good choice in systems typically with very large dataset and complex queries" one can wonder what the fuss is all about?
Why not settle for a common abstraction layer and let each run according to own taste. It should be obvious by now that it is never going to be any consensus between the different persistence camps.
One big advantage is that it will not be necessary to frisk for weapons at the entrance to conferences and seminars! :)
Yi Zhou: "I propose a cohesive persistence layer based on Spring Persistence Layer"
The obvious solution. (Think logic, reason, common sense. Exist for both Java and .NET) Can anyone imagine how much money that could be saved by this approach? All over the world?
Unfortunatly there is never possible to settle for anything obvious as long as a committee is involved.