Ok I try ;)
As far I can see in the code the majority of the Object have no relations
and are simple VO
Many of object use IMHO a bad pattern (DTO, VO ...)
For example :
public class UserVmVO extends VMInstanceVO implements UserVm {
...
There is NO relation between objects. Object are State.
*The power of Hibernate is to try for the user to make transparent the
management of a graph object*
*There is NO graph object in Cloudstack as far I can see.*
*
*
*In the other side I think the Business Domain of the System Management is
more document oriented.*
*For exemple a VM can be represented by a simple JSON structure:*
*
*
*{*
* name: "myVM",*
* memory: 1024*
* network: [{eth0: 195.21.24.12}, {eth1: 12.35.15.28}**]*
* storage: [{local: [{sdb ....}]}]*
*}*
*
*
*The force of the approach is to have a schema less support. If we need to
add attribute to a VM no need to migrate de DB.*
*In many case some part of the document can be exposed in JSON format
directly to the view (UI).*
*
*
*We have used MongoDB in on of my project (we used hibernate before) and
the return in term of usage in very very good.*
*In many many case, see the data as document is a big win.*
*
*
*
*
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Kevin Kluge <kevin.kl...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Rajesh, can you provide some rationale for this choice versus other
> options.
>
> -kevin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rajesh Battala [mailto:rajesh.batt...@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:44 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Hibernate
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had started working on this issue. As Hibernate is LGPL we cannot use
> this in
> > our Apache repo.
> > I had discussed with Chiradeep and Kelven.
> >
> > Am looking at replace Hibernate with Spring Framework
> > simpleJDBCTemplate.
> >
> > The Spring Framework is released under version 2.0 of the Apache License
> > http://www.springsource.org/spring-framework
> >
> > Thanks
> > Rajesh Battala
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:45 AM
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Hibernate
> > >
> > > The ORM in the AWS module is 90% used by S3.
> > > The dependency is mostly abstracted by a DAO layer; there is another
> > > dependency on transactions. I believe Rajesh B is already working on
> > > this aspect and there is a bug open on it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chiradeep
> > >
> > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 21:52, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Sheng Liang <sheng.li...@citrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> In short, I see three options (please comment if you see more) 1.
> > > >>> Rip out
> > > hibernate and replace with some other ORM 2. Make the AWS API bits an
> > > optional non-default part of the build.
> > > >> 3. Declare that hibernate is a system requirement for CloudStack
> > > >>
> > > >> I prefer option #1. It is the cleanest. I don't think it will be
> > > >> very difficult to
> > > rip out Hibernate.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sheng
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is my personal inclination as well, though I am somewhat
> > > > reticent to
> > > say so, since I am not doing any of the work to rip and replace. At
> > > the same time choice of ORM is a big issue. I know, for instance that
> > > Alex was looking into finding another ORM for the rest of CloudStack.
> > > When I initially looked at the Hibernate issue, Prachi told me she
> > > thought it was about 2 weeks worth of work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --David
>
