Re: [jrf-user] Stabliity and performance of version 2.0 beta

[Tom M. <tm...@li...>]

Alix

I'm not one of the developers, but I'm an "early adopter" of 2.0. I needed BLOBs, which aren't available in pre 2.0 JRF, and like you, I'm familiar with JRF from a previous
project, so this seemed the way to go.

There have been a few bugs, but the developers are responding to them rapidly. I looked over the simpleORM site, not really long enough to do a thorough comparison, but I
personally like the XML definitions in JRF 2.0. You define your schema in a pretty straightforward XML schema, and then the generation programs build both your database and
your objects. You get either an SQL script which you can execute, or the generators send JDBC "create table" statements right to your database. I especially like this kind
of "one definition" mode when I'm getting a new design on its feet and have to go back and tweak things. Makes for very rapid development.

--
Tom Miller
Miller Associates, Inc.
tm...@li...
641.469.3535 Phone
413.581.6326 FAX

"Rachel Chew (LME)" wrote:

> Hi Guys
> Last year our team successfully implemented a web site using JRF on MySql, and am after a break, I find myself in the same position, this time looking at JRF on SAP DB.
>
> Can anyone (developers?) give me an indication of when version 2.0 beta is likely to become production quality, or any comments on its current stability and performance.
>
> regards
> Alix Jermyn
>
> PS  look at http://www.simpleORM.org for an interesting alternative framework for simple apps - I don't know if this is production quality yet, but it is simple to use.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> jrf-user mailing list
> jrf...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jrf-user