As Andrej Koelewijn rightly “points out(Andrej Koelewijn – Persistence layer poll on OTN)”:http://andrej.racchvs.com/archive/2003/12/18/persistence_layer_poll_on_otn.html, the Oracle Technology Network’s “JDevelper site”:http://otn.oracle.com/products/jdev/index.html has survey on which persistence layers people are using seems a little sparse – “Hibernate”:http://www.hibernate.org/ (amongst others) is not included. This may be either because Oracle are worried that their own products might loose the poll, or it could be that they haven’t heard of Hibernate. Both “BC4J”:OracleAS TopLink, the #1 Java object-to-relational persistence architecture, and “TopLink”:http://otn.oracle.com/products/ias/toplink/index.html are included, both of which are Oracle products. In fact the TopLink product page contains the following quote:
OracleAS TopLink, the #1 Java object-to-relational persistence architecture…
One wonders if this quote is based on a survey where TopLink was the only possible answer…
One of the reasons for my annoyance on this poll is that I have a real desire to find out just what persistance frameworks people are using – vendor specific surveys clearly aren’t the way to go.
magpiebrain 
5 Responses to “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and an OTN Poll”
The most common I see used, in order, are: EJB CMP, EJB BMP, Hibernate, OJB, TopLink, Various JDO impls, Cayenne, Cocobase (yes, people use this despite Warren). This is very informal and unscientific, however.
-Brian McCallister
FWIW, I just finished a little project that used Castor’s JDO implementation to write to Postgres.
Tom
I think the results of the voting are true but because the Oracle users participate more in it (I think) the results are so in favour of Oracle…
I’d like to see such a voting in an independent website like JavaWorld, OnJava, or even JavaBlogs…
Behrang, I agree. Even a straw poll carried out at JavaOne next year would be helpful. I think I’ll ask at the next London Java meetup…
The other thing is that Hibernate makes it so easy to switch out databases, Oracle’s probably worried about the lack of lock-in for the next time they raise the yearly maintenance fees