Java - JDBC alternatives [closed]

this is just theoretical question.

I use JDBC with my Java applications for using database (select, insert, update, delete or whatever). I make "manually" Java classes which will contain data from DB tables (attribute = db column). Then I make queries (ResultSet) and fill those classes with data. I am not sure, if this is the right way.

But I've read lot of about JDO and another persistence solutions.

Can someone please recommend the best used JDBC alternatives, based on their experience?

I would also like to know the advantages of JDO over JDBC (in simple words).

I've been able to google lot of this stuff, but opinions from the "first hand" are always best.

Thanks

Solution 1:

The story of database persistence in Java is already long and full of twists and turns:

JDBC is the low level API that everybody uses at the end to talk to a database. But without using a higher level API, you have to do all the grunt work yourself (writing SQL queries, mapping results to objects, etc).
EJB 1.0 CMP Entity Beans was a first try for a higher level API and has been successfully adopted by the big Java EE providers (BEA, IBM) but not by users. Entity Beans were too complex and had too much overhead (understand, poor performance). FAIL!
EJB 2.0 CMP tried to reduce some of the complexity of Entity Beans with the introduction of local interfaces, but the majority of the complexity remained. EJB 2.0 also lacked portability (because the object-relational mapping were not part of the spec and the deployment descriptor were thus proprietary). FAIL!
Then came JDO which is a datastore agnostic standard for object persistence (can be used with RDBMS, OODBMS, XML, Excel, LDAP). But, while there are several open-source implementations and while JDO has been adopted by small independent vendors (mostly OODBMS vendors hoping that JDO users would later switch from their RDBMS datastore to an OODBMS - but this obviously never happened), it failed at being adopted by big Java EE players and users (because of weaving which was a pain at development time and scaring some customers, of a weird query API, of being actually too abstract). So, while the standard itself is not dead, I consider it as a failure. FAIL!
And indeed, despite the existence of two standards, proprietary APIs like Toplink, an old player, or Hibernate have been preferred by users over EJB CMP and JDO for object to relational database persistence (competition between standards, unclear positioning of JDO, earlier failure of CMP and bad marketing have a part of responsibility in this I believe) and Hibernate actually became the de facto standard in this field (it's a great open source framework). SUCCESS!
Then Sun realized they had to simplify things (and more generally the whole Java EE) and they did it in Java EE 5 with JPA, the Java Persistence API, which is part of EJB 3.0 and is the new standard for object to relational database persistence. JPA unifies EJB 2 CMP, JDO, Hibernate, and TopLink APIs / products and seems to succeed where EJB CMP and JDO failed (ease of use and adoption). SUCCESS!

To summarize, Java's standard for database persistence is JPA and should be preferred over others proprietary APIs (using Hibernate's implementation of JPA is fine but use JPA API) unless an ORM is not what you need. It provides a higher level API than JDBC and is meant to save you a lot of manual work (this is simplified but that's the idea).

Solution 2:

If you want to write SQL yourself, and don't want an ORM, you can still benefit from some frameworks which hides all the tedious connection handling (try-catch-finally). Eventually you will forget to close a connection...

One such framework that is quite easy to use is Spring JdbcTemplate.

Solution 3:

I can recommend Hibernate. It is widely used (and for good reasons), and the fact that the Java Persistence API specification was lead by the main designer of Hibernate guarantees that it will be around for the foreseeable future :-) If portability and vendor neutrality is important to you, you may use it via JPA, so in the future you can easily switch to another JPA implementation.

Lacking personal experience with JDO, I can't really compare the two. However, the benefits of Hibernate (or ORM in general) at first sight seem to be pretty much the same as what is listed on the JDO page. To me the most important points are:

DB neutrality: Hibernate supports several SQL dialects in the background, switching between DBs is as easy as changing a single line in your configuration
performance: lazy fetching by default, and a lot more optimizations going on under the hood, which you woulds need to handle manually with JDBC
you can focus on your domain model and OO design instead of lower level DB issues (but you can of course fine-tune DML and DDL if you wish so)

One potential drawback (of ORM tools in general) is that it is not that suitable for batch processing. If you need to update 1 million rows in your table, ORM by default will never perform as well as a JDBC batch update or a stored procedure. Hibernate can incorporate stored procedures though, and it supports batch processing to some extent (I am not familiar with that yet, so I can't really say whether it is up to the task in this respect compared to JDBC - but judging from what I know so far, probably yes). So if your app requires some batch processing but mostly deals with individual entities, Hibernate can still work. If it is predominantly doing batch processing, maybe JDBC is a better choice.

Solution 4:

Hibernate requires that you have an object model to map your schema to. If you're still thinking only in terms of relational schemas and SQL, perhaps Hibernate is not for you.

You have to be willing to accept the SQL that Hibernate will generate for you. If you think you can do better with hand-coded SQL, perhaps Hibernate is not for you.

Another alternative is iBatis. If JDBC is raw SQL, and Hibernate is ORM, iBatis can be thought of as something between the two. It gives you more control over the SQL that's executed.