Comments on: Hibernate3 Example of Annotation Hell :)

By: NeVaL

NeVaL — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:37:39 +0000

http://filmiki-najlepsze.lolas.pl ^^^ filmiki najlepsze ^^^ [url]http://filmiki-najlepsze.lololas.pl[/url]

By: Val

Val — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:28:14 +0000

I warned about what I called the “annotation hell syndrom” more than a year ago arguing that in order to be useful annotations had to be used sparely. Read more at:

The annotation hell syndrom:
http://radio.javaranch.com/val/2004/05/14/1084533540000.html

The annotation hell syndrom: Part 2
http://radio.javaranch.com/val/2004/07/23/1090568800000.html

The Annotation Saga: Feedback to Cédric and Bill
http://radio.javaranch.com/val/2004/07/26/1090824307000.html

By: Adam Kruszewski

Adam Kruszewski — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:47:51 +0000

Imho using annotations for NamedQueries is one of the dumbest thing that can be done ™. What if your DB is changed to another, different one? You just end rebuilding the whole thing.
But the typedefs can be set up with annotations, that way when you rename the class it will be renamed also, assuming you are using smart IDE. (but of course you probably wouldn’t rename a class the first place ;-))

By: Dion

Dion — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:23:12 +0000

Note: I am not trying to say “annotations are bad” here at all.

I think annotations are good in general.

I think there are great uses of annotations.

I think there are good uses of annotations wrt persistence.

I just worry when I see huge sets of annotations like this.

Dion

By: Gavin

Gavin — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:08:50 +0000

Um, I’m finding it kinda hard to see what’s so bad about this.

Since you didn’t show the equivalent XML next to it, its pretty hard to judge which is better, isn’t it?

Note that this metadata is NOT occurring in a class definition, but as package-level metadata. So if you prefer, you can put it in XML even if you are using annotations in your classes.

But, from what I can see, a bunch of typedefs and named queries isn’t especially prettier in XML. You’re just more used to seeing XML ugliness than annotation ugliness.

What we are finding is that people who are using annotations in *practice*, rather than as tourists, absolutely love it. So many people came up to me at JavaOne and told me this….

By: levmatta

levmatta — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:04:44 +0000

NO it is no better for THIS CASE.
But annotations are better for defining entity beans. Personally I am im doubt with type definitions, but they are a lot worse for defining querys for sure (because you do not have the ability to change this querys in the future).

By: Noone

Noone — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:29:37 +0000

Hibernate works MUCH better with Spring. You should wrap Spring around it. :)

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:52:52 +0000

What a mess…

By: coderonin

coderonin — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:17:58 +0000

But dude, didn’t you read! The example is called Caveat Emptor, so watch out before you buy into the whole annotation thing! ;-)