Hey Marcel, On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> > In my view, ORM is middeware, but not all middleware is ORM. That's why I see > it as an extension. More precise, you do state it's not just middleware, but > "persistence, storage and retrieval middleware", but even that in my view is > not a synonym for ORM. > > Looking at this from another angle, even the term ORM is probably not that > good: it implies a mapping between an object model (check, that applies) to a > relational model (nope, that does not apply for most NoSQL stores, they're > definitely not relational). Meh, to each their own :-) In general, I agree that ORM implies relational, but Gora is *like* an ORM: it uses schema (specified using AVRO JSON) to identify objects to store, to retrieve, and to query for, obfuscating the underlying data store. To me, this is precisely what ORMs like e.g., Hibernate, Derby, etc., do, and I think that's the same idea that Enis and others who started the project had in mind. Right now we support a combination of Hadoop databases (HBase), and column oriented stores (Cassandra) and also relational (SQL) stores. >> >> I debated doing that too, Marcel. How would you update the sentence above to >> include Hadoop? >> Please suggest one and we'll try and integrate. > > My question is, does Gora require Hadoop, or is it just that its main use > case just happens to involve Hadoop for splitting up the large amounts of > data? It doesn't require Hadoop -- you can use Gora with SQL too -- but I think our focus is on NoSQL. The major difference is that you specify your schema in AVRO (which I think Gora is the only ORM type technology I've seen that uses AVRO for that) compared to some other Domain Specific Language (e.g., IDL, some new XML language, whatever). > > > What about: > > "open-source software for mapping objects to NoSQL databases" I'm cool with that. I think others in the Gora community would be too. I'm CC'ing them now and if I don't hear objections, I'll update (pending the outcome of this VOTE on general@) the board resolution when I post to board@ with that text. Now that I've answered your concerns, hopefully I look forward to your expressing your VOTE on this thread. Thanks Marcel. > > and, IF it somehow requires Hadoop (see question above) that definition > should probably be extended with something like "for Hadoop". It doesn't require it, so maybe it's fine to leave out Hadoop. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
