Let me say i know NOTHING about nhibernate except its for databases. I am doing a fairly small project, should i learn nhibernate?
I guess i have 4 questions
Is using a nhibernate overkill in a small project?
What should i NOT use nhibernate for?
if i have a large project should i use nhibernate if it has very complex tables? What about simple table schemes?
nhibernate is a very flexible system and can be used with simple databases or more complex ones. The real question comes down to what your project is rather then if its big or small and how much time you want to spend setting up a good design. If your site is just pulling a table out of database listing it on the webpage for viewing and editing. nhibernate is over kill, you simply have no need for the business objects it will create. On the other hand if business/domain objects are the center point of your project then you can benefit from use of nhibernate.
Why not start using nhibernate on a small project? This is a good way to learn it without the additional complication and stress of learning it on a large project.
It certainly doesn't hurt to learn nhibernate but it might be a bit of overkill for a small project. A small project is a great chance to learn nhibernate but if you are in a rush to get it done you're probably better off without it for now.
Related
I hear from everywhere that NHibernate 3 learning curve is very huge. It is considered huge from which perspectives ? Do you think that the learning needed depend on the scenario it is used ?
Example: If i just want some application that act on 3 entities and only looking for basic crud. Is it necessary to understand the whole concept underlying NH ?
Would like to know users experiences with some explanation over your answer to this.
Edit: Do you recommend of using NH over Entity Framework 4 ? (if you tried both)
Thanks.
There is a learning curve for any ORM. Once you've learned one ORM, learning a second ORM goes much faster. In most cases, it doesn't matter (learning speed wise) which ORM you learn first.
Currently, I think you can probably get going faster initially with EF4 than NHibernate, but over the long term I think NHibernate is a superior choice. Those are the main two ORMs worth spending time on at the moment.
Once you understand ORMs, your development speed will be much faster in regards to database access. There are other benefits to ORMs as well, so it's definitely worth taking that learning curve on.
NHibernate indeed does have a leaening curve, but it all depends what your background is...
Is the concept of ORM's familiar to you at all ? Do you have experience working with Entity Framework 4 ?
In order to build a simple application with 3 entities/tables and simple CRUD operations, you don't need to understand the core of NH, but problems will start to come up when you think of expanding the program you are building or the moment you run into bugs or features that you will only find out along the way...
I really suggest using NH, and learning it is always easier on programs with a small db like the one you're probably going to be working on.
I would also suggest diving straight into Fluent NHibernate. It's a way of mapping the entities without using XML at all.
Start out by reading the introduction and the 'first project' page at the Fluent Nhibernate homepage.
You can read alot more about NHibernate and Fluent NHibernate at ayende's blog.
You can learn the NH basics in a single day. And believe me, it will pay off.
I learned EF after NH and can say that if you are going to use automappings, POCO objects etc then learning will be just the same.
NHibernate has NOT a "steep, large, horrendous learning curve".
I learnt NHibernate just reading the (excellent, BTW) manual. It was v1.2 and, believe me, it is much better now than then.
I am starting to delve into the realm of ORMs, particularly NHibernate in developing .NET data-aware applications. I must say that the learning curve is pretty steep and that a lot of things should be noted. Apparently, it actually changes the way you do data-aware applications, manner of coding, development and just about everything.
Anyway, I want to ask if you do set some parameters when deciding to USE or NOT TO USE ORMs in your applications? How do you decide then the approach that one needs to make it valuable to your organization?
The organization which I work for now apparently has made a lot of SQL and Data Access thing running through back end and I must say that these class/methods/procedures have successfully performed their tasks of providing the data which is needed and when it is needed. I think it would be a tremendous effort just to map some of this into ORM and derive the same business value that the company has for the last few years.
Nevertheless, I know that ORM paves the way for applications to talk with database servers, if properly implemented. I must admit that I am at a learning stage and that I would possibly need all the help, resources and the guidance to make this transition. I was also thinking of buying the book from Manning but I feel that with so much changes to NHibernate, the book may be a bit outdated. Perhaps waiting for the Packt book on NHibernate (release on May 2010??) would help me better get up and running.
Kindly share your thoughts. By the way, if you could also point me in a small sample web app which uses NHibernate + Visual Web Developer 2008 Express and SQL Server, that would be highly appreciated.
Thanks.
For me, the short of it is the following:
If you don't use an established ORM, and you develop correctly (meaning you refactor out duplication and look to simplify where you can), you'll wind up building your own ORM through the evolution of your data access layer.
The question then becomes:
"Do I want my developers spending time learning the idiosyncrasies of my home-grown ORM or learning those of a well-documented and well-tested ORM?"
Furthermore:
"If I'm hiring a new developer, wouldn't it be nicer to bring in a developer that knows the established ORM tool we're using rather than having to train someone up on this thing I built?"
I use NHibernate, particularly Fluent - and it's great; if given the choice, I wouldn't develop on an RDBMS any other way.
To be successful with an ORM you must make sure to normalize correctly, and use the database for it's designed purpose, storing data.
I don't use an orm when:
I don't use a relation database (Relational databases are not the best choice of database for every application)
The database is has a very small amount of tables. (I might need less code without an orm)
I use a very simple database that can map to code with simple naming
conventions. (Mapping to dumb DTO classes and all queries like select * from tablename where id=#id)
Learning a good orm is worth the time and effort, it will save you writing a lot of code when you use relational databases a lot.
You can find example apps/tutorials/video's about NHibernate on with stackoverflow search. There is another book in progress by manning, maybe it's possible to read it with the early access program.
I am trying to work out with ORM tool to move over to and have narrowed it down to two candidates.
nHibernate or LLBLGen Pro
Please can you guys give me pros and cons in using both these tools especially if you have experience in both. I am not really interested in any other tools but am wanting some heads up so I can decide which tool to spend time learning....
I already know that one is free and one isn't, I also know that nHibernate might take some learning....
Many thanks, Richard
I have used both. At first I was sold on nHibernate and refused to try anything else even though I knew about other options.
With LLBLGen Pro, I was skeptical, but soon saw the advantages as well. I have not totaly abandoned nHibernate. I will continue to keep int in my "box of tools". I have found LLBLGen useful in some cases especially when interacting with a database that already exists and you have no choice of re-designing it. It takes less than an hour (depending on size of database of course) to generate my LLBLGen Entity Objects from the database, as opposed to having to code all of it manually with nHibernate, AND do the mappings. nHibernate is missing a nice graphical interface to create the mappings. This fact becomes even more important when the database is massive with thousands of tables that you need to potentially access in your application.
Although LLBLGen is more of a Data Access Layer generator (And I am not normally a fan of DAL generators), it has a lot of features a "true ORM" tool would have. In my opinion it has the best of both worlds. Once you start working with it you start to realize that it is very flexible and extendable. One part I like a lot is that it is possible for me to create partial classes for the generated entity objects, where I can code in my business logic, as well as validation.
The code generation is templated so you have full control over the code it generates. With nHibernate I find myself writing some of the same kind of code over and over again. With LLBLGen I can generate it and get to focus on business logic and issues quicker.
For someone who is just starting to use ORM type tools, I really recommend to start with LLBLGen, because nHibernate can be overwhelming. And in the end you will have achieved the same result (More or less).
Edit #1: LLBLGen now also has 100% support for LINQ. (So if you like LINQ to SQL for that reason) further LLBLGen can support many databases, where LINQ to SQL is only for Microsoft SQL Database.
Edit #2:
According to Graviton you can use CodeSmith to do some of the code generating for you for nHibernate. That is really cool, but for a newcomer to ORM I would still recommend LLBLGen. To me that is adding more dependencies where LLBLGen has it all in one package. Also like I said before the learning curve is so much less steep and you will get the same benefits, which will also help you ease in to nHibernate if you ever decide to go there.
The major difference is that LLBLGen is a code generator, while NHibernate is a "true" ORM library.
LLBLGen advantages:
Easy to use model designer. Can import your existing database schema
Fully typed object model and query language
LLBLGen disadvantages:
You need the designer application to change your model
Not free
Can bloat your code because a lot of code is generated
NHibernate advantages:
No designer application needed. Only code
Widely used (based on the most popular Java ORM, Hibernate)
Very powerful for mapping any data model you can imagine
Open source
NHibernate disadvantages:
Hard to learn
Not as strongly typed as one would like (especially queries)
Of course, this is just my personal point of view...
I typed up a fairly long answer before realizing this was a somewhat old question. Oh well. It's still very relevant.
You have narrowed your list to the two best candidates for an ORM in the .NET world. I have limited experience with either, but I've read extensively about the pros and cons of both. They really serve somewhat different needs in different ways.
In the upcoming LLBLGen Pro 3.0, Frans Bouma has talked about adding features to generate NHibernate mappings. So, it's not even necessarily an either/or decision.
If you want to do "class first" design (as opposed to "database first" design), NHibernate is pretty much your best and only option right now (neither LLBLGen Pro nor Entity Framework support this mode, although it sounds like Entity Framework is improving it's support in the next version).
NHibernate and LLBLGen Pro both work hard to work well with legacy databases which you can not change and have to live with. That is their common strength. They both also work with Linq. They both also support some amount of graphical modeling, although LLBLGen Pro is far superior in this regard (ActiveWriter for NHibernate feels like the LinqToSql designer in Visual Studio, but it's not really as feature rich).
LLBLGen Pro has much stronger code generation abilities, but too much code generation can lead to compromised testability and maintainability (one small tweak can cause massive amounts of code to need retesting).
While NHibernate wants to help you work through fairly complex object/relational mapping scenarios like class inheritance, LLBLGen Pro is really just exposing your database as a data layer and business objects in a very quick way.
If you can purchase LLBLGen Pro and have some time, I would try both and see which one better meets your needs. Learning both ORMs is good for your resume in any case.
So, in the end, I would say it's situational. The cost of NHibernate and its lack of serious flaws make a pretty compelling case in the majority of situations.
The new version of LLBLGen Pro (3.0) allows you to generate code for NHibernate, so don't have to choose :). It also allows you to split up your entities into different domains.
I still prefer the LLBLGen pro runtime though, the LINQ interpreter is more complete and it has better change tracking of fields.
Unfortunately there's not many new features in the new LLBLGen Pro 3.0 runtime, as the creator first wanted to focus more on tooling than improving the existing framework.
I've used nHibernate, LLBLGen Pro, a custom data layer from my consulting company, the Enterprise Library, and LINQ. LLBLGen is by far my favorite and it allows writing one business layer that can talk to different types of databases using the same code providing database independence! Another incredible feature is it allows multiple connections to different databases. This is very useful when at a large company and one system is written in Sql Server and the other you have to interface with is in Oracle.
LLBLGen Pro is an amazing product backed up by Frans who is very active and works hard to fix issues. LLBLGen is like PhotoShop, it is an incredible tool and that can do amazing effects in the hands of someone who knows how to use. And like any tool that saves lots of time, it takes a week or two to learn how to use it, but will save months later on your project.
Not only did it speed up the DAL generation side of my app, it is also easy to create queries in the Business layer and send to the presentation layer. It made it easy to create an enterprise class application.
If one really wants to use nHibernate, start with LLBLGen Pro and generate the nHibernate code. If later on your department decides to switch from nHibernate to LINQ, you are covered. Want to switch from Sql Server to Oracle? This is possible and relatively easy with LLBLGen whereas with manually coded nHibernate code, you have to rewrite everything which is almost impossible to cost justify.
Frans was also available and answered some of my questions.
Don't forget one of the greatest plus point of Hibernate: HQL. With HQL, your SQL skill is not wasted. And Hibernate provides very nice, seamless support for native query as well.
If you have some weird, out-of-standard database, it's almost certain that you need your SQL skill at some point, and good luck with LLBL!
For me it boils down to database centric (LLBLGen Pro) vs. domain model centric (NHibernate).
Since I'm a DDD/OO guy, the choice has always been very easy for me, but I do see why LLBLGen Pro is popular.
We use LLBLGen at work, and it's reviled -- namely because we have multiple similar schemas, but you need to have a different DLL/Class library for each schema, meaning that it becomes annoying to write code that can target any schema.
Of course, that's an unusual environment, so it may not apply to you.
I need to collect some information about existing ORM solutions.
Please feel free to write about any programming language.
Can you tell about the best ORM framework you ever use and why is it better then others?
I used NHibernate and Entity Framework.
Current stable version of entity framework is very immature. It is too difficult, or impossible to perform common tasks. Testing your code is also difficult since you cannot really separate your entities from your data access classes. But it perfectly integrates with visual studio ide. Setting up is easy and updating all the models from database takes just a few seconds. Upcoming version of EF (4.0) will solve some of this problems.
NHibernate is quite powerful. It supports plain old clr objects, so you can work with simple entities. Configurations provide great control in great detail. Framework capabilities are satisfying and it has a large and active community and good documentation. Setting up and updating entities is a little difficult since you must use generators that looks up your database and generates entities and xml files. It may be tricky to find a generator or a template that exactly fits your needs. But once you set all things up, you will love it.
I found LINQ to SQL to be a pretty straight forward solution. The first time I used it, I'd say I had a basic ORM working within a few hours, and was creating LINQ queries with it.
Microsoft has an additional ORM (Entity Framework), which I've heard is more complex but may be useful for highly complex distributed applications with multiple data sources etc.
Overall I found LINQ to be an easy and fast to use ORM.
I have been looking at Telerik Open Access for last few months, in genernal this ORM has been a pain to work with, it was advertised as having extensive linq support but in reality many of the linq features you would normally expect dont work server side and are performed on the client. I also had problems using multiple conditions in a where clause, see my last question. Here are a few things that i found
No support for views
Unable to map more than one entity to the same table
Inheritance and Interface support requires you to make changes to you database schema
No visual designer like LINQ to SQL and Entity Framework
If you want to perform an insert any related entities must be fetched first
Rohan
LINQ2SQL was nice, EF makes sense, but is very complex and SQL Server oriented. NHibernate is special and Telerik OpenAccess (fully .NET / Visual Studio) got a broad set of functionality and professional support.
Since I know the product I can comment on Rohan's concerns:
Existing Views can be used and full Views support is coming up
Mapping more than one entity to the same table "works" for class hierarchies, limitation with reverse mapping exists
Inheritance and Interfacer support "do not require" changes to the the database schema, again limitation with reverse mapping exists though
Visual Designer will come, Forward and Reverse Mapping Wizards allow you already to do anything in an easy way
There is a workaround for the insert issue mentioned and it will be fixed generally
Check out the Telerik site to find happy customers and feel free to use the telerik forums and support resources for any question.
-Peter
Im new to OpenAccess ORM and we are using two products. Reporting and OpenAccess.
I think there are some features that people missed.
OpenAccess uses graphical designers while nHibernate still uses handwritten xml files
OpenAccess is not limited to SQl Server as EF4 and similiar frameworks
using it is easier and the forums are pretty helpful.
With ORM there are multiple possibilities, all depends what you want.
As a real ORM mapper I strongly recomment NHibernate and Fluent NH mappings. You need a lot of research to put together a nice architecture, but then nothing stands in your way. With minimal compromises you get real flexibility.
EF6x (core is not prod.-ready IMHO) is called an ORM, but what it generates is more closer to a DAL. There are some thing's you can't do effectively with EF6. Still, this is my favorite tool for a read-model, while I do combine it with NHibernate (where NH I use for a DDD/write model).
Now to performance - its always pro and cons. If you deep deeper into ORM architecture (see my article: avoid ORM bad habits) then you will find intuitively the ways to make it faster. Here's my another article on how to make EF6x 5x faster (at least for read situations): EF6.x 5x faster
We've been using our own DAL for our projects in our company and for the passed 2 projects this has causing us problems. Because of this I want to study SubSonic and/or NHibernate. Is it better to study SubSonic first or NHibernate? What are the advantages/disadvantages? From what I have read from related questions here NHibernate is more complex compared to SubSonic so I want to start with the latter.
SubSonic is significantly easier than NHibernate, you can start working with it almost immediately (few screencasts and you're done). In NHibernate you need some more work to start up – XML config, Session handling and such stuff. So if you are new to ORM, learn SubSonic first, and then delve into NHibernate. Personally I think for small projects you can even happily end up with SubSonic :)
SubSonic is an Active Record ORM. If that is what you are looking for you should compare it with other active record ORM's such as Castle. Castle is built on top of nHibernate so your team can expand to full feature set if needed. AT this point your comparing apples to apples and it doesn't matter which one you start with.
If your not looking for an Active Record style ORM try starting with Fluid nHivernate to lower the learning curve a little.
I dont know a great deal about SubSonic but I recently took on the task of tooling up with NHibernate and found this book (probably the only one out there really) very useful
NHibernate is definately more complex, but with that complexity comes greater flexibility. Subsonic is great, but you should also be aware that it's very much an open source project and whilst it's currently stable, it doesn't have the active development community behind it that NHibernate does.
Another thing to be aware of is that subsonic is a sort of "code generator" where it will actually generate a bunch of stuff for you. NHibernate is an ORM in the very literal sense in that you map objects to your database. You can use code generators to generate the mappings for you, but it is a fundamentally different way of thinking about ORMs.
Personally, if you look at subsonic and find that it has everything you need, than I would look at that, or possibly even linq to sql, however if you find you're getting into more complex object problems, then maybe NHibernate is worth learning.
The answer depends on many different factors. If you learn nHibernate, you are opening yourself many doors of learning curves but they all pay off. Sub Sonic can get you up to speed but is based on code generation which means you have boundaries. With nHibernate, you define you own mapping. Infact with Fluent Interface nHibernate mapping, it's much more easier, simpler and faster to map the objects. There is a very active users group link text
Plus you have full flexibility of mapping. nHibernate could be a little hard to start with but it's totally worth learning. I myself have written 2 professional projects for my clients using nHibernate.