The First Public Release of ObjectDB 2 is Now Available

Discussions

News: The First Public Release of ObjectDB 2 is Now Available

  1. ObjectDB is a powerful object oriented database management system (ODBMS). It is compact, reliable, easy to use and extremely fast. ObjectDB provides all the standard database management services (storage and retrieval, transactions, lock management, query processing, etc.) but in a way that makes development easier and applications faster.

    Download (3.38 MB)

    Threaded Messages (28)

  2. Nice and all, but...

    Not having a platform/language neutral on-disk format is a huge mistake. Databases tends to live forever, and languages and platforms don't. What if I want to access the data from a .net app, or c++ or whatever? Or migrate the entire app some day?

  3. You are absolutely right. Portability is very important, but...

    1. ObjectDB is cross platform. It does require a JVM, but so Derby, HSQLDB and H2. Anyway a JVM is available almost anywhere, and actually increases portability.
    2. The file format is portable between platforms (e.g. Windows, Linux, Mac OS, ...)
    3. It will be accessible from other languages. See:
      http://www.objectdb.com/faq/java/groovy/vb/php/ruby/phyton
      http://www.objectdb.com/database/issue/26
    4. But the most important - it is the only object database with built in support of JPA! You can pull your data from ObjectDB easily as JPA entity objects and transfer them anywhere using Hibernate, EclipseLink, OpenJPA, etc. Which other Object Database offers such an easy migration?

    Use ObjectDB for ease of use and extremely high performance, and if necessary, keep your data also in a relational database, using the same JPA source code.

    Ilan Kirsh
    ObjectDB Software

  4. Congratulations Ilan on your release! Totally agree that portability is very important, as is support for persistence standards (and worth mentioning that ObjectDB also support both JDO and JPA).

    --Andy (DataNucleus)

  5. jpa[ Go to top ]

    persistence standard? is jpa a persistence standard across all platforms in the industry?

    u guys r really funny.

    this guy assumes ppl who use jvm use his db.. why will he otherwise say it is easy to migrate coz they use jpa... so funny..and he talks abt supporting other platforms.. and it gets even funneir

  6. JDO is also supported[ Go to top ]

    Thanks Andy.

    I emphasized JPA, which is new in ObjectDB 2, but that is correct, ObjectDB supports JDO since its first release.

    ObjectDB 2 supports JDO 2.2 almost completely, where the new JDO 3.0 features are on the way.

    No one can beat you at DataNucleus in keeping updated with persistence standards, but now ObjectDB is second only to DataNucleus in the extent of JDO support, and that is a great honor :-)

  7. You are absolutely right. Portability is very important, but...

    1. ObjectDB is cross platform. It does require a JVM, but so Derby, HSQLDB and H2. Anyway a JVM is available almost anywhere, and actually increases portability.


    That logic is flawed. It can't be both cross platform AND depend on a JVM. I don't care what Derby, etc does.

    Anyway, for jvm fanboys, this is a nice product. I'm just saying... for a long-term mission critical database backend, I'm rather dubious.

  8. logic[ Go to top ]

    logic goes like this...

    jvm is portable

    object db requires jvm

    object db is accessed thru jvm

    so,object db is portable

  9. logic[ Go to top ]

    logic goes like this...

    jvm is portable

    object db requires jvm

    object db is accessed thru jvm

    so,object db is portable

     

    That's just dumb.

  10. Benefit of the market ...[ Go to top ]

    That logic is flawed. It can't be both cross platform AND depend on a JVM. I don't care what Derby, etc does.
    Anyway, for jvm fanboys, this is a nice product. I'm just saying... for a long-term mission critical database backend, I'm rather dubious.

    I can see your concern on JVM- dependence... Still a?nything which replaces ORM tools and relational dbms is to be welcomed! Dependence on Java is excusable...  If ObjectDB can serve as a general purpose dbms for simple to medium sized Java applications, then it will be a great leap forward!

  11. jvm[ Go to top ]

    it wud be easier to just say that u depend on jv for portability..

    there is no need to point, and say they too do the same thing. the question asked here is what did u do any different? u r simply depending on jvm thats all.. all this jpa stuff is bs..

  12. JPA 2 Support or Not?[ Go to top ]

    ObjectDB is the only Object Oriented Database with built in support of JPA 2.

    Java Persistence API (JPA)

    • Most features of JPA 2 are already supported.
    • Support of additional JPA 2 new features is in progress.

    I'm actually excited about the built-in JPA 2 support. I'm doing a book on Spring, and haven't decided which database or implementation I'm going to use in the section that discusses Spring and JPA 2.0. I'm thinking ObjectDB might be a nice choice. But I'm a bit nervous about the whole "Most Features Supported" thing...

  13. MySQL would be better[ Go to top ]

    If I were to buy your book, I would look for a discussion around RDBMS, any open source db would do.

    The world runs on rdbms, and object db's haven't really taken over. I would most likely not a find real use case if you were to cover object db's.. just my 2 cents.

  14. JPA 2 Support or Not?[ Go to top ]

    Congratulations on the release Ilan!  I know the large amount of hard work that went into it.

    I'm actually excited about the built-in JPA 2 support. I'm doing a book on Spring, and haven't decided which database or implementation I'm going to use in the section that discusses Spring

    Just to offer a simple datapoint in ObjectDb's favour if it helps.  I've used ObjectDb1.x fairly extensively over the last few years to persist EMF models for my phd, and migrated to ObjectDb2.alpha/beta at one point.  It's one of the most robust, impressive pieces of software I've yet used.  The quality and performance is phenomenal.  If you used ObjectDb, I doubt you'd be disappointed.

    and JPA 2.0. I'm thinking ObjectDB might be a nice choice. But I'm a bit nervous about the whole "Most Features Supported" thing...

    JDO has lots of optional features.  Most implementations only support a subset of them.  I was very pleasantly surprised by the extensive coverage of the optional features of JDO1.x in ObjectDb1.x.  I'm guessing it is the same with JPA in this case.

    Andrew

    p.s. disclaimer -- i have no ties to objectdb apart from being a satisfied user.

  15. jvm[ Go to top ]

    it wud be easier to just say that u depend on jv for portability..

    there is no need to point, and say they too do the same thing. the question asked here is what did u do any different? u r simply depending on jvm thats all.. all this jpa stuff is bs..

    there are many aspects to portability.  one is data portability between platforms.  another very important aspect is source code portability.  JPA, as a mature spec, is very important for the latter.  JDO is in the same boat, but with less industry buy-in.  i've personally migrated between objectdb and datanucleus using H2 which was possible because both support JDO.

     

  16. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    How does ObjectDB compare to DB4O.

     

  17. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    How does ObjectDB compare to DB4O.

    i did my face-off about 3 or 4 years ago, but when i directly compared odb and db4o, I found:

    1. objectdb supported jdo out of the box.  db4o had a proprietary interface.  datanucleus subsequently has started supporting db4o.

    2. db4o didn't have transparent activation.  i believe it has subsequently added it.

    3. for my use case (storing large UML models with the Eclipse EMF infrastructure, >10gb), objectdb resulted in smaller databases which were 4x-10x faster on retrieval.

    4. the client/server mode of objectdb was far more robust.

    5. the licensing fees of objectdb were more reasonable and the team behind odb seemed far more willing to consider size of projects etc when looking at licensing fees.  db4o at the time were asking for something like 10% of the cost price of my product.

    6. jar sizes for objectdb were comparable with db4o.

    As i've said before, i have no commercial affiliation with either database vendor.  I have previously used a range of objectdatabases from versant through objectstore in telecomms and finance.  I'd rate objectdb over all of them.

    Andrew

  18.  

    Three or four years is quite a long to to compare. Since Versant has taken over DB40, a lot has been improved. I would be interested in seeing a comparison now.

  19. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    How does ObjectDB compare to DB4O.

    [...rant...] I have previously used a range of objectdatabases from versant through objectstore in telecomms and finance.  I'd rate objectdb over all of them.

    Andrew

     

    Even in terms of support and size of community?

    Go sell somewhere else.

     

  20. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    How does ObjectDB compare to DB4O.

    http://...rant... I have previously used a range of objectdatabases from versant through objectstore in telecomms and finance.  I'd rate objectdb over all of them.

    Andrew

     

    Even in terms of support and size of community?

    Go sell somewhere else.

    as i stated, i am not selling.  i have no commercial affiliation with objectdb.  go be a cynical, clueless jerk somewhere else.

  21. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    Even in terms of support and size of community?

    if you program to JPA (or even JDO), the size of the community is far larger than that for db4o.

  22. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    Even in terms of support and size of community?

    if you program to JPA (or even JDO), the size of the community is far larger than that for db4o.

     

    Dumbest thing I've read today. It's the IMPLEMENTATION that needs a large community, not the interface specifications...

    And let's face it, ObjectDB has about zero community, judging from the forums and what I can gather from my extensive research (uh, googling).

  23. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    Dumbest thing I've read today. It's the IMPLEMENTATION that needs a large community, not the interface specifications...

    a multi-vendor spec with wide community support is very important, and if you believe this you are either inexperienced or being disingenuous.  if you use JPA and target objectdb, then moving to datanucleus (another excellent product) is straight fwd.

    if you use db4o's interface directly, however, nothing will save you (not even the implementation community) if you need to use another product.  and if you are not using GPL, it is a commercial product.  you are stuck with the vendor.

    anyway, i've given my views -- i've used many of these object databases over the years, and i can say, hand on heart, that objectdb is possibly the best and most impressive i've used.  it's fast and an impressive product.  i wish my stuff was this good.  i stand on record as stating that i have no commercial affiliation with objectdb apart from being a satisfied customer (I will provide the receipt email from plimus via email if you contact me via my javalobby address).  i want to see the product do well, because it deserves the success.

    however, you've done nothing but complain and dissemble.  how about giving us some (any) technical substance for your arguments?  have you used these systems?  do you have any insights?  or are you just trying to confuse people about an excellent product because you are argumentative?

     

  24. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    whoops, should have been: "a multi-vendor spec with wide community support is very important, and if you *don't* believe this you are either inexperienced or being disingenuous"

  25. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    whoops, should have been: "a multi-vendor spec with wide community support is very important, and if you don't believe this you are either inexperienced or being disingenuous"

    But I am experienced and ingenious and thus know that the community of an actual implementation is infinitely more important. ObjectDB has about 5 postings on their forum, most of which are by the company itself. Not exactly a "tried and true" product I'd trust my precious data with in a hostile, fault-infested and highly concurrent environment.

     

  26. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    But I am experienced and ingenious and thus know that the community of an actual implementation is infinitely more important.

    your inflated opinion of yourself counts for little.  you clearly have no experience using databases of this sort.

    the important things are the *quality* of the implementation and the acceptance and quality of the API.

    ObjectDB has about 5 postings on their forum, most of which are by the company itself. Not exactly a "tried and true" product I'd trust my precious data with in a hostile, fault-infested and highly concurrent environment.

    unsurprisingly, you haven't provided any technical substance whatsoever.  the forum has clearly been recently released with the redesign of the website and of course contains little in the way of comments.  i know this because i've seen the website change in the last week.

    until you are prepared to technically understand these products and use and evaluate them, your comments are worthless.  all you are doing is arguing your entrenched position, as a matter of pride.

     

  27. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

    whoops, should have been: "a multi-vendor spec with wide community support is very important, and if you don't believe this you are either inexperienced or being disingenuous"

    But I am experienced and ingenious and thus know that the community of an actual implementation is infinitely more important.

    disingenuous, by the way, is not an antonym for ingenious.  the definition of disingenuous is "not straightforward or candid".  it has nothing to do with cleverness.

     

  28. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

     

    disingenuous, by the way, is not an antonym for ingenious.  the definition of disingenuous is "not straightforward or candid".  it has nothing to do with cleverness.

     

    As we all know. That doesn't change the fact that I'm experienced and ingenious.

  29. Comparisons to DB4O[ Go to top ]

     

    disingenuous, by the way, is not an antonym for ingenious.  the definition of disingenuous is "not straightforward or candid".  it has nothing to do with cleverness.

     

    As we all know. That doesn't change the fact that I'm experienced and ingenious.

    fair enough ;-)