Ive recently started on a project and the existing physical architecture is to have a DB on the server and a (single) client on a seperate machine with hibernate on the client talking to the server over JDBC.
While this works fine for one client, we will be adding multiple clients (covering different business functions) very soon now. I am in the process of forming an argument to push for having a single instance of hibernate on the server since this is the way I (and everyone else Ive ever talked to previously who has used ORM systems) have always done it previously.
It seems that from a theoretical point of view that multiple instances of hibernate sharing a DB can be made to work by configuring it appropritely e.g. disabling the cache and forcing optimistic versioning via DB column, but it seems inherently fragile to me.
Has anyone tried doing this before ? or can anyone point to specific hibernate behaviour that would completely rule this out as a viable approach ?.
Please note that I am *not* concerned with performance and scalability issues since this is a self containes in-store retail system with clients and server on a fast lan and one server for a maximun of about 5 clients. I'm am purely concerned (at this juncture) with the logical functional and configuration problems of having multiple hibernate instances sharing a DB.