On 5/21/07, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My tests are not really complete as I'm not testing all of the
> different forms of URL and I'm not measuring load and memory size. Its
> a very simple test. Perhaps too simple. That said, what I'm finding
> with these informal tests is that OpenJPA performs the same or better
> than Hibernate in terms of response time and through-put. The attached
> screen shots show an example of the results I'm getting. Overall:
>
> Hibernate: 25.73 pages/minute
> OpenJPA: 34.3 pages/minute
>
> So, straight-to-JPA appears to be working well and we're still waiting
> for the IBM iBatis implementation. I think it's time to stop waiting
> and make the switch to OpenJPA. What do you guys think?
personally I am still hesitant to make that switch yet, but i haven't
had time to look at the code recently. also, even if Roller were to
switch to JPA right now i am not ready to do that for our installation
so i am going to be maintaining the Hibernate backend until i have
enough time to actually fully evaluate the JPA backend and make sure
it's ready.
Yes, it is a big change but it's one that we have to make for 4.0 so
we need to figure out a plan and that's why I'm trying to get the
discussion started.
> Here are some questions to consider:
> - What additional testing & work would you like to see?
from the previous time that i spent with the JPA backend I am not truly
convinced that if JPA is passing our current tests that it means
everything is green. there are still gaps in the tests and since JPA
has some different semantics than Hibernate there is the possibility
that an operation can pass even though it didn't really succeed. i know
this is a little tough to qualify without explicit examples, but my
general feeling is still unease.
No need to qualify, I agree, we have limited test coverage.
the performance tests you have are valid, but ultimately those aren't
tests of the backend. what i would really like to see us have is some
tests which work directly against the backend manager classes because
that is truly testing the performance of the backend. i don't think
this required to promote the JPA backend, but we had previously talked
about a performance comparison and IMO this is the real way to achieve
it. plus, this would just be a great analytical tool to work on
performance tuning the backend code.
The tests are definitely testing the back-end, but you are correct
they are not testing *only* the back-end.
> - Should we wait any longer for IBM to donate an iBatis implementation?
i don't think so. unfortunately we can't wait forever :/
Elias? James? Want to speak up now? Can you guys give us status on
iBatis? Alternatively, if you could help with JPA acceptance testing
that would be a great help.
> - What other objections do you have to making the switch?
echoing the concerns mentioned above, my general feeling is that there
really hasn't been enough eyes looking at the code, playing with it, and
testing it.
aside from unit testing has anyone else actually fired up a real
deployment using the JPA backend? tested it against a db full of
existing data? walked through all the operations and made sure the data
is properly being handled properly?
I'm confident enough to run my site on JPA, but my site is tiny in
terms of traffic and data.
- Dave
> - Dave
