> No one forced the Eclipse Foundation to take Toplink/Eclipselink, if
its sucks as hard are you are implying then they would have used
something else.
these groups takes pretty much everything if they don't have similar
project yet. It has nothing to do with existing code quality. They
accept it as new project and let see if people are interested in working
on it. if not just nuke it after 2 years.
> just because your customers are stuck in the past with tools that
> force then to work harder, not smarter doesn't mean the rest of us
> should suffer.
Its not about working harder, its about do not migrate into new
technology unless there is noticeable busyness benefit from it.
Migrations cost you money and if there is very little to gain, then dont
migrate. For example if existing app runs fine in Oracle R10 why bother
with R11?
> There's still people using Windows 2000 and Lotus Notes. That doesn't
> make them "industry standard", certainly not in my industry.
Lotus Notes is not obsolete software, 8.5.2 release is nice and it comes
with good framework for writing web apps.
> I'll assume you are referencing JPAB [1].
yes
> This was last updated in 2010 and in the case of Eclipselink uses
> 2.1.1 so these results are out of date.
you can ask these guys to rerun bench, they are pretty responsive
> This study doesn't include Oracle as a DB paired with each provider
> tested.
blame oracle /lawyers /for sending threats to people with oracle
benchmarks on their pages.
> Why aren't you advocating ObjectDB be the 'industry standard'?
because its not supported by J2EE application server vendors - Weblogic
and websphere.
> This test uses JDK 6u13 on XP Pro SP3. XP Pro SP3 is *deprecated* by
> Microsoft.
os itself has very little to do with exceptions thrown during bench
> My point is that I would not draw a conclusion that something should
> be the 'industry standard' based on one study that was done using old
> versions of the implementations in questions, on a deprecated OS,
> using an out of date JDK.
it was not my point. my point was that openjpa was standard because it
was used by 2 leading AS vendors util very recently weblogic nuked it.
They probably have openjpa1 for JPA1 and eclipselink for JPA1/JPA2 now.
> The errors you make note of may not even be present in current
> versions. They may be a flaw in the test, who knows, its all not very
> relevant at this day and time.
In 2010 it was discovered that Hibernate has some minor bugs in less
known databases support and JPA has low performance due to not pooling
connections by default and one bug in lack of thread locking. Both
hibernate and openjpa improved their products based on feedback from
that test.