incubator-empire-db-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcio Mazza <>
Subject Re: An excercise inspired by empire-db
Date Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:52:23 GMT
Well... one should read "4 main reasons" instead of 2... They silently grew
while I wrote.

They should be 3, actually, since pagination support (limit) seems easy to

2011/4/13 Marcio Mazza <>

> I recently took a a 2 week vacation to make a little exercise inspired by
> empire-db.
> It is here:
> Everything is experimental, but maybe you can see some of the design
> through.
> I do not have much time to work on that anymore... so I bring this to you
> now.
> My motivation was to make a minimal API (much smaller than that of
> empire-db).
> It borrows from empire-db the idea of expressing the database metadata in
> code, which I think is really great. Try to see the differences in design,
> though.
> Now... the *feedback*:
> One may wonder why didn't I stick to empire-db, instead of trying to write
> something on my own.
> Two main reasons come to my mind now:
> 1) Empire-db's scope is much bigger than what I wanted.
>   I indeed think you could have a smaller kernel, with just the basic SQL
> operations, leveraging just the idea of "metadata in code" and nothing more.
> Everything else should be pluggable and optional.
> 2) Empire-db's kernel is not strictly portable between the supported
> vendors. (One of the key advantages of Hibernate :P... oh... that name
> revolves my stomach).
> 3) Empire-db does not have good automated test coverage.
>   Although Donald Knuth does not consider this to be a problem, I do
> believe that an open source project that wants to really gather new
> contribution cannot succeed without it. The reason is simple. Once a
> contribution is made, everything should be tested. The knowledge of what
> should be tested, and how, should be readly available to that very
> contributor. And, to be nice and inviting, that test knowledge should be
> automated.
>   Actually I saw very little tests. You have to go much further and dive to
> the degree of deep integration testing, to run the same tests against
> different database instances automatically. That's an interesting thing.
> 4) Empire-db didn't have simple and direct pagination support. I see you've
> been implementing that. This is too basic a thing for web apps and I think
> should be a priority.
> Those are my opinions and my feedback. They were written in very good will.
> The success of Empire-db is in my best interest. The java community needs
> this approach.
> []'s
> Mazza.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message