Hi Kevin, 1. The reasons why I had choose Spring JDBC are, it will take care of the below action items very well The Spring JDBC template allows to clean-up the resources automatically, e.g. release the database connections.
The Spring JDBC template converts the standard JDBC SQLExceptions into RuntimeExceptions. This allows the programmer to react more flexible to the errors. The Spring JDBC template converts also the vendor specific error messages into better understandable error messages. The Spring JDBC template offers several ways to query the database. queryForList() returns a list of HashMaps. The name of the column is the key in the hashmap for the values in the table. More convenient is the usage of ResultSetExtractor or RowMapper which allows to translates the SQL result direct into an object (ResultSetExtractor) or a list of objects (RowMapper). 2. Spring is free and it's based on Apache License. We can use spring jars in our repos. Shall I proceed to replace Hibernate Framework with Spring JDBC. Thanks Rajesh Battala > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Kluge [mailto:kevin.kl...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:24 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Hibernate > > 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
