db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bergquist, Brett" <BBergqu...@canoga.com>
Subject RE: JPA required?
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:13:55 GMT
For your use case, probably not.   JPA is not something that is going to solve a database element
corruption and in fact with JPA and its normal use, you have less control when entity changes
are flushed to the database.

Note that if you don't have your database stored on medium that has write caching, if the
host computer goes down, the database is not going to be corrupt; it might not have the latest
change, but it will be consistent if you are using transactions.

-----Original Message-----
From: JimCrowell37 [mailto:JimCrowell@EMail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:52 PM
To: derby-user@db.apache.org
Subject: JPA required?


I have spent today reading up on JPA and I have a question if I really need it.

I have a data entry form class where each data entry field is associated with an element of
a Derby dynamic database table. As each data entry field looses it's form focus, I shall write
the entered data entry value to the Database table. The Database table primary key is the
fields row / column indices.

Since my goal is to save all data entries in a persistent manner, my question is do I need
to implement JPA?

I think that the worst case scenario is that my end users host computer goes down sometime
during the Database write processing and that Database element may be corrupted.

That thought is what led me to learning about JPA to persist the Database transaction.

Do I need to implement JPA or is there a better way to achieve my persistence goal?


View this message in context: http://apache-database.10148.n7.nabble.com/JPA-required-tp127242.html
Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

View raw message