storing data in a desktop app

Discussion in 'Java' started by harryos, Feb 27, 2011.

  1. harryos

    harryos Guest

    hi
    I am plannig to write a task /time tracking app in which a user can
    add/edit tasks and later get reports about the tasks completed.I
    thought of doing it as a web app with hsqldb to store data.Then ,when
    I came to think about it,I wondered why I couldn't do this as a
    desktop application.Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?I
    mean can I make my application in such a way that a user will not have
    to do database setup separately.I am intending to give this
    application to users who will have no knowledge about database systems
    or their setup.Can I hide the db setup/access and everything related
    to data storage inside my appliation and thus invisible to the user?Or
    do I have to store data as csv?
    Any help/advice most welcome
    thanks & regards
    harry
    harryos, Feb 27, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. harryos

    markspace Guest

    On 2/26/2011 9:12 PM, harryos wrote:
    > Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?



    I wrote a similar app a while back for myself. I didn't use a RDBMS.
    It seemed far too complicated for just a little time keeping app.

    Instead, I just used POJO domain objects, and serialized the object
    graph to disc. Simple and easy. Now if you have more sophisticated
    needs than I did, maybe an RDBMS makes sense. But I'd try it with POJOs
    first, it might work just fine.
    markspace, Feb 27, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. harryos

    Lew Guest

    harryos wrote:
    > I am plannig to write a task /time tracking app in which a user can
    > add/edit tasks and later get reports about the tasks completed.I
    > thought of doing it as a web app with hsqldb to store data.Then ,when
    > I came to think about it,I wondered why I couldn't do this as a
    > desktop application.Is it a good idea to use rdbms [sic] in a desktop app?I


    Use spaces after your punctuation, for God's sake!

    Why wouldn't it be a good idea?

    Did you Google for this first?

    > mean can I make my application in such a way that a user will not have
    > to do database setup separately.I am intending to give this\


    Derby. It comes with the JDK already and can be embedded in your app just by
    including the JAR file. No setup required.

    > application to users who will have no knowledge about database systems
    > or their setup.Can I hide the db setup/access and everything related
    > to data storage inside my appliation and thus invisible to the user?Or
    > do I have to store data as csv [sic]?
    > Any help/advice most welcome


    Spaces after punctuation.

    GIYF.

    --
    Lew
    Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    Lew, Feb 27, 2011
    #3
  4. harryos

    David Segall Guest

    markspace <-@.> wrote:

    >On 2/26/2011 9:12 PM, harryos wrote:
    >> Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?

    >
    >
    >I wrote a similar app a while back for myself. I didn't use a RDBMS.
    >It seemed far too complicated for just a little time keeping app.
    >
    >Instead, I just used POJO domain objects, and serialized the object
    >graph to disc. Simple and easy. Now if you have more sophisticated
    >needs than I did, maybe an RDBMS makes sense. But I'd try it with POJOs
    >first, it might work just fine.


    Why write the code required to try it with POJOs? An RDBMS provides
    far more functionality and consists of documented, extensively tested,
    code. Even a little time keeping app probably requires referential
    integrity to ensure that, for example, the project you say you are
    working on exists. You can use a tool like OpenOffice Base to write
    test data, check your program's output and produce ad-hoc reports. In
    addition, many of the embedded RDBMS's can be adapted for multiple
    users with almost no extra effort. If you choose Derby and a modern
    version of Java you already have it on your computer.
    <http://profectus.com.au/ee_freedbms.html#Java>
    David Segall, Feb 27, 2011
    #4
  5. harryos

    Lew Guest

    On 02/27/2011 07:19 AM, David Segall wrote:
    > markspace<-@.> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2/26/2011 9:12 PM, harryos wrote:
    >>> Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?

    >>
    >>
    >> I wrote a similar app a while back for myself. I didn't use a RDBMS.
    >> It seemed far too complicated for just a little time keeping app.
    >>
    >> Instead, I just used POJO domain objects, and serialized the object
    >> graph to disc. Simple and easy. Now if you have more sophisticated
    >> needs than I did, maybe an RDBMS makes sense. But I'd try it with POJOs
    >> first, it might work just fine.

    >
    > Why write the code required to try it with POJOs? An RDBMS provides
    > far more functionality and consists of documented, extensively tested,
    > code. Even a little time keeping app probably requires referential
    > integrity to ensure that, for example, the project you say you are
    > working on exists. You can use a tool like OpenOffice Base to write
    > test data, check your program's output and produce ad-hoc reports. In
    > addition, many of the embedded RDBMS's can be adapted for multiple
    > users with almost no extra effort. If you choose Derby and a modern
    > version of Java you already have it on your computer.
    > <http://profectus.com.au/ee_freedbms.html#Java>


    Looks like it's been a while since that site was updated. I suggest you
    provide current links.

    Here's a link for the current version of Derby / JavaDB:
    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html

    You can find more documentation about the DBMS itself at:
    http://db.apache.org/derby/

    --
    Lew
    Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    Lew, Feb 27, 2011
    #5
  6. On 11-02-27 01:12 AM, harryos wrote:
    > hi
    > I am plannig to write a task /time tracking app in which a user can
    > add/edit tasks and later get reports about the tasks completed.I
    > thought of doing it as a web app with hsqldb to store data.Then ,when
    > I came to think about it,I wondered why I couldn't do this as a
    > desktop application.Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?I
    > mean can I make my application in such a way that a user will not have
    > to do database setup separately.I am intending to give this
    > application to users who will have no knowledge about database systems
    > or their setup.Can I hide the db setup/access and everything related
    > to data storage inside my appliation and thus invisible to the user?Or
    > do I have to store data as csv?
    > Any help/advice most welcome
    > thanks & regards
    > harry


    Whatever you choose for persistent storage it's a good idea to separate
    the implementation of it from the rest of your application. I recommend
    reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_access_layer to start; it's a
    short and sweet description of the concept that I'm talking about, the
    Data Access Layer (DAL).

    With a good DAL design & implementation, your business logic, when it
    needs to find or save or remove domain objects, simply calls methods
    like "save" or "find" or "delete" on DAL interfaces. It's transparent to
    your business logic that JPA or straight JDBC or file storage is being used.

    I'll caution you about the last paragraph, where it says that ORM tools
    "provide data layers in this fashion". Well, no, they really don't. If
    using JPA with certain popular Java ORMs, a common pattern of use sees
    JPA calls sprinkled through all levels of an application. If you want to
    have a proper DAL with JPA you still need to design and write a proper DAL.

    Having said all that, I see no problems with using HSQLDB or Derby as
    your persistence _implementation_. You can certainly make the overall
    application very user-friendly.

    AHS

    --
    We must recognize the chief characteristic of the modern era - a
    permanent state of what I call violent peace.
    -- James D. Watkins
    Arved Sandstrom, Feb 27, 2011
    #6
  7. harryos

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 27-02-2011 00:12, harryos wrote:
    > I am plannig to write a task /time tracking app in which a user can
    > add/edit tasks and later get reports about the tasks completed.I
    > thought of doing it as a web app with hsqldb to store data.Then ,when
    > I came to think about it,I wondered why I couldn't do this as a
    > desktop application.Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?I
    > mean can I make my application in such a way that a user will not have
    > to do database setup separately.I am intending to give this
    > application to users who will have no knowledge about database systems
    > or their setup.Can I hide the db setup/access and everything related
    > to data storage inside my appliation and thus invisible to the user?Or
    > do I have to store data as csv?


    The big question is whether the data needs to be shared
    between users.

    If not then use an embedded Java database (HSQLDB, H2,
    Derby aka Java DB etc.) in your desktop app. That will
    be completely invisible to the user.

    And I can not really see any reason not to use a database.
    The JDBC API is simple and well documented. So are various
    ORM frameworks and API's (like JPA).

    If the users need to share data then you need a different
    design.

    Like one of these:

    multiple instances desktop app---(JDBC)---database server

    multiple instances desktop app---(SOAP/HTTP)---web service----database
    server

    where the databaser server is one of MySQL, SQLServer etc..

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 27, 2011
    #7
  8. harryos

    Lew Guest

    Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    > harryos wrote:
    >> I am plannig to write a task /time tracking app in which a user can
    >> add/edit tasks and later get reports about the tasks completed.I
    >> thought of doing it as a web app with hsqldb to store data.Then ,when
    >> I came to think about it,I wondered why I couldn't do this as a
    >> desktop application.Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?I
    >> mean can I make my application in such a way that a user will not have
    >> to do database setup separately.I am intending to give this
    >> application to users who will have no knowledge about database systems
    >> or their setup.Can I hide the db setup/access and everything related
    >> to data storage inside my appliation and thus invisible to the user?Or
    >> do I have to store data as csv?


    > Whatever you choose for persistent storage it's a good idea to separate
    > the implementation of it from the rest of your application. I recommend
    > reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_access_layer to start; it's a
    > short and sweet description of the concept that I'm talking about, the
    > Data Access Layer (DAL).
    >
    > With a good DAL design& implementation, your business logic, when it
    > needs to find or save or remove domain objects, simply calls methods
    > like "save" or "find" or "delete" on DAL interfaces. It's transparent to
    > your business logic that JPA or straight JDBC or file storage is being used.
    >
    > I'll caution you about the last paragraph, where it says that ORM tools


    Object-to-Relational Mapping

    > "provide data layers in this fashion". Well, no, they really don't. If
    > using JPA with certain popular Java ORMs, a common pattern of use sees
    > JPA calls sprinkled through all levels of an application. If you want to
    > have a proper DAL with JPA you still need to design and write a proper DAL.
    >
    > Having said all that, I see no problems with using HSQLDB or Derby as
    > your persistence _implementation_. You can certainly make the overall
    > application very user-friendly.


    +1.

    As an advanced topic, there can be a DAL that is not monolithic. DAL
    functionality can be implemented by service-specific instances that parallel
    each other within the DAL.

    There are pros and cons as with all tool selections.

    ORM tools *can* provide a DAL "in this fashion" if you don't abuse them, e.g.,
    by falling into the "sprinkle" trap.

    Tools can be abused, and don't apply everywhere. JPA is for a common use
    case, persistence-backed object models. It is not intended to present a
    data-oriented persistence view to the application. People often attempt to
    suborn JPA's automatic features in a misguided attempt to control data access.
    This leads to clumsy, difficult-to-maintain data "layers".

    With a solid object model, you accomplish Arved's advice to separate data
    concerns cleanly from your application. For most scenarios the application
    sees only objects and their relationships handed up by JPA. Corner cases you
    hide behind service interfaces that live at roughly the same layer as the ORM
    or barely above it.

    As a rule of thumb, any type that knows about 'EntityManager' should be in the
    same layer.

    --
    Lew
    Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    Lew, Feb 27, 2011
    #8
  9. harryos

    Tom Anderson Guest

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, harryos wrote:

    > I am plannig to write a task /time tracking app in which a user can
    > add/edit tasks and later get reports about the tasks completed.I thought
    > of doing it as a web app with hsqldb to store data.Then ,when I came to
    > think about it,I wondered why I couldn't do this as a desktop
    > application.Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?I mean can I
    > make my application in such a way that a user will not have to do
    > database setup separately.I am intending to give this application to
    > users who will have no knowledge about database systems or their
    > setup.Can I hide the db setup/access and everything related to data
    > storage inside my appliation and thus invisible to the user?Or do I have
    > to store data as csv?


    You can do that, no problem. The embedded databases like HSQLDB will
    create databases in local files, which behave just like any other files.

    Don't use HSQLDB, though, use H2. It's faster, and has better SQL support.

    tom

    --
    Everything looks kind of OK
    Tom Anderson, Feb 27, 2011
    #9
  10. harryos

    Tom Anderson Guest

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, David Segall wrote:

    > markspace <-@.> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2/26/2011 9:12 PM, harryos wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?

    >>
    >> I wrote a similar app a while back for myself. I didn't use a RDBMS.
    >> It seemed far too complicated for just a little time keeping app.
    >>
    >> Instead, I just used POJO domain objects, and serialized the object
    >> graph to disc. Simple and easy. Now if you have more sophisticated
    >> needs than I did, maybe an RDBMS makes sense. But I'd try it with
    >> POJOs first, it might work just fine.

    >
    > Why write the code required to try it with POJOs?


    Because it's about six lines - three to save, three to load. Working with
    an RDBMS is pretty easy, working with an ORM is even easier, but working
    with objects and serialization is dumfoundingly easy.

    > An RDBMS provides far more functionality


    True - and where that's needed, and RDBMS is a great way to get it.

    > and consists of documented, extensively tested, code.


    As does serialization.

    > Even a little time keeping app probably requires referential integrity
    > to ensure that, for example, the project you say you are working on
    > exists.


    Serialization provides that. Or rather, the Java object model provides
    that, and serialization captures it.

    I'm not saying that serialization is a good choice for all situations, but
    it's an eminently reasonable thing to do for a simple app, or as a first
    cut at storage in a complex app. Start with it, and add a database when
    you have a reason to.

    tom

    --
    Everything looks kind of OK
    Tom Anderson, Feb 27, 2011
    #10
  11. harryos

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 27-02-2011 15:37, Tom Anderson wrote:
    > On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, harryos wrote:
    >> I am plannig to write a task /time tracking app in which a user can
    >> add/edit tasks and later get reports about the tasks completed.I
    >> thought of doing it as a web app with hsqldb to store data.Then ,when
    >> I came to think about it,I wondered why I couldn't do this as a
    >> desktop application.Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?I
    >> mean can I make my application in such a way that a user will not have
    >> to do database setup separately.I am intending to give this
    >> application to users who will have no knowledge about database systems
    >> or their setup.Can I hide the db setup/access and everything related
    >> to data storage inside my appliation and thus invisible to the user?Or
    >> do I have to store data as csv?

    >
    > You can do that, no problem. The embedded databases like HSQLDB will
    > create databases in local files, which behave just like any other files.
    >
    > Don't use HSQLDB, though, use H2. It's faster, and has better SQL support.


    HSQLDB is more used than H2.

    But I agree that H2 is pretty cool.

    I love ALLOW_LITERALS=NONE !

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 27, 2011
    #11
  12. harryos

    markspace Guest

    On 2/27/2011 4:19 AM, David Segall wrote:

    > Why write the code required to try it with POJOs?



    Tom has the right of it. I didn't write any code, it's all done for me
    by the basic Java runtime. First with ObjectOutputStream, then with
    XMLEncoder/Decoder.


    <http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/beans/XMLEncoder.html>


    I'm curious what you thought I was actually advocating.
    markspace, Feb 27, 2011
    #12
  13. harryos

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 27-02-2011 15:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, David Segall wrote:
    >> markspace <-@.> wrote:
    >>> On 2/26/2011 9:12 PM, harryos wrote:
    >>>> Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?
    >>>
    >>> I wrote a similar app a while back for myself. I didn't use a RDBMS.
    >>> It seemed far too complicated for just a little time keeping app.
    >>>
    >>> Instead, I just used POJO domain objects, and serialized the object
    >>> graph to disc. Simple and easy. Now if you have more sophisticated
    >>> needs than I did, maybe an RDBMS makes sense. But I'd try it with
    >>> POJOs first, it might work just fine.

    >>
    >> Why write the code required to try it with POJOs?

    >
    > Because it's about six lines - three to save, three to load. Working
    > with an RDBMS is pretty easy, working with an ORM is even easier, but
    > working with objects and serialization is dumfoundingly easy.
    >
    >> An RDBMS provides far more functionality

    >
    > True - and where that's needed, and RDBMS is a great way to get it.
    >
    >> and consists of documented, extensively tested, code.

    >
    > As does serialization.
    >
    >> Even a little time keeping app probably requires referential integrity
    >> to ensure that, for example, the project you say you are working on
    >> exists.

    >
    > Serialization provides that. Or rather, the Java object model provides
    > that, and serialization captures it.
    >
    > I'm not saying that serialization is a good choice for all situations,
    > but it's an eminently reasonable thing to do for a simple app, or as a
    > first cut at storage in a complex app. Start with it, and add a database
    > when you have a reason to.


    XML serialization can be a solution where search and concurrency
    are not issues.

    I will argue against binary serialization for persistence. Too high
    a risk of problems being able to access the data in the future.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 27, 2011
    #13
  14. In message
    <>, harryos
    wrote:

    > Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?


    Why not? SQLite3 is heavily used for precisely this sort of thing, for
    example in Firefox/Iceweasel. It’s lightweight enough to be found on Android
    mobile phones.

    > I mean can I make my application in such a way that a user will not have
    > to do database setup separately.


    1) if (!DatabaseExists())
    {
    CreateDatabase();
    } /*if*/

    2) Follow conventions like the XDG Base Directory Specification
    <http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/> to reduce clutter
    and make it easy for users to backup, restore and transfer your data.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 27, 2011
    #14
  15. In message <>, Tom
    Anderson wrote:

    > ... but working with objects and serialization is dumfoundingly easy.


    I like to keep external data formats separate from the internal structure of
    my code. That way, changes to the latter don’t impact the former.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 28, 2011
    #15
  16. harryos

    David Segall Guest

    Lew <> wrote:

    >On 02/27/2011 07:19 AM, David Segall wrote:
    >> markspace<-@.> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2/26/2011 9:12 PM, harryos wrote:
    >>>> Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I wrote a similar app a while back for myself. I didn't use a RDBMS.
    >>> It seemed far too complicated for just a little time keeping app.
    >>>
    >>> Instead, I just used POJO domain objects, and serialized the object
    >>> graph to disc. Simple and easy. Now if you have more sophisticated
    >>> needs than I did, maybe an RDBMS makes sense. But I'd try it with POJOs
    >>> first, it might work just fine.

    >>
    >> Why write the code required to try it with POJOs? An RDBMS provides
    >> far more functionality and consists of documented, extensively tested,
    >> code. Even a little time keeping app probably requires referential
    >> integrity to ensure that, for example, the project you say you are
    >> working on exists. You can use a tool like OpenOffice Base to write
    >> test data, check your program's output and produce ad-hoc reports. In
    >> addition, many of the embedded RDBMS's can be adapted for multiple
    >> users with almost no extra effort. If you choose Derby and a modern
    >> version of Java you already have it on your computer.
    >> <http://profectus.com.au/ee_freedbms.html#Java>

    >
    >Looks like it's been a while since that site was updated.


    That's true but I checked the links on the page before I posted and
    they all retrieved the site that I intended.
    > I suggest you
    >provide current links.
    >
    >Here's a link for the current version of Derby / JavaDB:
    >http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html


    That's a general download link but the specific JavaDB URL is the one
    I provided. It resolves to
    <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javadb/overview/index.html>.

    >
    >You can find more documentation about the DBMS itself at:
    >http://db.apache.org/derby/


    That's the URL on my site.

    I try to ensure that the information at <http://profectus.com.au>
    is current or to tell a visitor that it is not. I do appreciate any
    corrections or updates but it seems sensible to let Oracle provide the
    redirects until they have settled their site.
    David Segall, Feb 28, 2011
    #16
  17. harryos

    Lew Guest

    David Segall wrote:
    > Lew wrote:
    >> Looks like it's been a while since that site was updated.

    >
    > That's true but I checked the links on the page before I posted and
    > they all retrieved the site that I intended.


    That's funny, because the first link I clicked on that site went all 404 on me.

    --
    Lew
    Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    Lew, Feb 28, 2011
    #17
  18. harryos

    David Segall Guest

    Lew <> wrote:

    >David Segall wrote:
    >> Lew wrote:
    >>> Looks like it's been a while since that site was updated.

    >>
    >> That's true but I checked the links on the page before I posted and
    >> they all retrieved the site that I intended.

    >
    >That's funny, because the first link I clicked on that site went all 404 on me.


    Please forward it to me. The address is david "at" profectus.com.au
    but clicking on the email address at
    <http://profectus.com.au/contact.html> is probably easier.
    David Segall, Feb 28, 2011
    #18
  19. harryos

    Lew Guest

    On Feb 28, 10:15 am, David Segall <> wrote:
    > Lew <> wrote:
    > >David Segall wrote:
    > >> Lew wrote:
    > >>> Looks like it's been a while since that site was updated.

    >
    > >> That's true but I checked the links on the page before I posted and
    > >> they all retrieved the site that I intended.

    >
    > >That's funny, because the first link I clicked on that site went all 404on me.

    >
    > Please forward it to me. The address is david "at" profectus.com.au
    > but clicking on the email address at
    > <http://profectus.com.au/contact.html> is probably easier.


    The link labeled "IBM DB2 Express-C" wouldn't come up.

    The link to SmallSQL takes you to a page that lists the "Advatages
    [sic]" of the product and points out that "It does not has [sic] a
    network interface". I suggest you not include them any more.

    McKoi DB tells us, "Note that Mckoi SQL Database hasn't seen a new
    release since 2004." You should drop them, too.

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Feb 28, 2011
    #19
  20. harryos

    Lew Guest

    On Feb 27, 3:43 pm, Tom Anderson <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, David Segall wrote:
    > > markspace <-@.> wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2/26/2011 9:12 PM, harryos wrote:

    >
    > >>> Is it a good idea to use rdbms in a desktop app?

    >
    > >> I wrote a similar app a while back for myself.  I didn't use a RDBMS..
    > >> It seemed far too complicated for just a little time keeping app.

    >
    > >> Instead, I just used POJO domain objects, and serialized the object
    > >> graph to disc.  Simple and easy.  Now if you have more sophisticated
    > >> needs than I did, maybe an RDBMS makes sense.  But I'd try it with
    > >> POJOs first, it might work just fine.

    >
    > > Why write the code required to try it with POJOs?

    >
    > Because it's about six lines - three to save, three to load. Working with
    > an RDBMS is pretty easy, working with an ORM is even easier, but working
    > with objects and serialization is dumfoundingly easy.
    >
    > > An RDBMS provides far more functionality

    >
    > True - and where that's needed, and RDBMS is a great way to get it.
    >
    > > and consists of documented, extensively tested, code.

    >
    > As does serialization.
    >


    That does not mean that serialization is easy to program.

    It is not.

    > > Even a little time keeping app probably requires referential integrity
    > > to ensure that, for example, the project you say you are working on
    > > exists.

    >
    > Serialization provides that. Or rather, the Java object model provides
    > that, and serialization captures it.
    >
    > I'm not saying that serialization is a good choice for all situations, but
    > it's an eminently reasonable thing to do for a simple app, or as a first
    > cut at storage in a complex app. Start with it, and add a database when
    > you have a reason to.
    >


    Given the relative ease of RDBMS programming and the trickiness most
    people ignore in handling serialization, plus the propensity of any
    successful software package to grow and expand, starting with a
    cleanly-separated persistence layer and an RDBMS is not a very risky
    choice.

    Serialization will get your prototype out the door, but somewhere in
    Week 2 you're going to start trying to report on the persistent
    information using /ad hoc/ query dimensions.

    Java serialization also locks your class design into yet another
    public interface, only this one includes the private implementation.
    That's a heavy maintenance price to pay for trying to make life
    easier.

    At the very least, read the warning, cautions and idioms in /Effective
    Java/ regarding serialization before you shoot yourself in the foot
    with it.

    Given the low overhead of RDBMSes and the plethora of frameworks such
    as JPA to work with them, and the dangers and difficulties of
    serialization, I would never consider serialization as a persistence
    mechanism.

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Feb 28, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. TC
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    644
    JohnnyAppleseed
    Feb 7, 2005
  2. Kenneth Keeley

    Send Data to Desktop App

    Kenneth Keeley, Jul 18, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    357
    Kenneth Keeley
    Jul 19, 2006
  3. RP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    517
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
    Aug 19, 2007
  4. Alex Bryan

    Connecting a Desktop App to a Web App

    Alex Bryan, Jun 22, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    214
    Alex Bryan
    Jun 22, 2008
  5. iMath
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,094
    iMath
    Nov 10, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page