Page 4 of 5

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 2:50 pm
by jurchiks
@Zoey - c3p0 is outdated and there are much better and cleaner solutions out there.
@UnAfraid - I wouldn't be so sure about that. The added complexity wouldn't be worth it IMHO. I know you like complexity for some reason, but not everybody does.

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 3:54 pm
by xban1x
jurchiks wrote:@Zoey - c3p0 is outdated and there are much better and cleaner solutions out there.
@UnAfraid - I wouldn't be so sure about that. The added complexity wouldn't be worth it IMHO. I know you like complexity for some reason, but not everybody does.
Okari showed an implementation for JPA and Hibernate. It resulted in massive amounts of classes...

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:09 pm
by jurchiks
That's what I meant.

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:22 pm
by UnAfraid
jurchiks wrote:That's what I meant.
When i mention hibernate i didn't had this example in mind at all.

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:36 pm
by jurchiks
Nevertheless, changing the dbcp doesn't require rewriting everything to do with the database.

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 5:05 pm
by UnAfraid
jurchiks wrote:Nevertheless, changing the dbcp doesn't require rewriting everything to do with the database.
What's the point of changing it just like that when there will be no difference?

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 5:23 pm
by jurchiks
There will be a difference in performance.

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:17 pm
by UnAfraid
jurchiks wrote:There will be a difference in performance.
Do you have performance issues with c3p0?
Weird i had over 3k players with c3p0 and i didn't had issues.
Neither nBd he had 9k (almost) with c3p0 and it was working pretty good are there nowdays such servers?

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:20 pm
by jurchiks
So you're of those types who believe in "good enough"? Even if it can be much better?

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:21 pm
by UnAfraid
jurchiks wrote:So you're of those types who believe in "good enough"? Even if it can be much better?
I am saying that this changes pointless either we change the whole approach to make it really better or we simply don't even touch it.

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:24 pm
by jurchiks
Yeah, and doing it step by step is not even an option, right?

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:26 pm
by UnAfraid
jurchiks wrote:Yeah, and doing it step by step is not even an option, right?
If we switch to hibernate step by step is out of the picture

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:41 pm
by Zoey76
Do you know you could be writing code instead of writing posts? :mrgreen:

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:43 pm
by jurchiks
@Zoey - You don't want me to answer to that.

@UnAfraid - Why do you think hibernate is the only/best option?

Re: L2J Changes

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 7:05 pm
by UnAfraid
jurchiks wrote:@UnAfraid - Why do you think hibernate is the only/best option?
I am not sure which one is going to be yet.
hibernate is nice but could be something else for example http://javalite.io/activejdbc