douglas.surber at oracle.com
Mon Jul 30 20:35:29 UTC 2018
Approximately 200 people attended the SV JUG presentation and 100 the SF JUG. I asked both groups how many people write actual JDBC code as part of their current work. Out of those 300 people one person half heartedly raised his hand. Over half the people raised their hands when asked if they use JDBC directly or indirectly.
Jens is absolutely right and I hope the same will be true for ADBA, whatever it turns out to be.
One interesting point this raises is that writing ADBA code directly using only Java SE is not an important use case. The requirement that ADBA not reference anything not in Java SE remains; it will be a Java standard after all. But if using ADBA conveniently requires additional support, that is an acceptable limitation. Assuming such support is freely available from a wide number of sources. The limitation is acceptable because virtually all users will be using ADBA via a framework of some kind, not directly in the more limited environment provided by Java SE.
> On Jul 29, 2018, at 11:27 PM, Jens Schauder <jschauder at pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hardly anybody uses JDBC directly.
> Instead people use libraries to abstract away the details they don't want
> to care about, with a wide range of options, ranging from
> Spring JdbcTemplate, to jOOQ or JPA or even combinations of those.
More information about the jdbc-spec-discuss