>What about abstraction layer idea based on Hibernate OGM?
I agree with being able to support different type of databases, relational as well as non-relational. The interface is pretty simple but everything is currently in the core modules which is bad. We have now extracted them into separate modules[1] and I'm currently working on improving the interface and adding the Redis datastore example into a separate module as well. 

I've not looked into Hibernate OGM but if it is limited to those then perhaps this is something for a future version.

[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-363

On 26 September 2013 11:50, Karel Piwko <kpiwko@redhat.com> wrote:
No reason to push for Mongo then, my experience with NoSQL databases (not
counting XML databases) is pretty limited and I'm glad you gave me some insight.

What about abstraction layer idea based on Hibernate OGM? Does it make any
sense to you? Currently is does support only Infinispan, EHCache and MongoDB
[1], so I guess it's out of question as well.



On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:59:10 -0300
Douglas Campos <qmx@qmx.me> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:53:19AM -0700, JR Conlin wrote:
> > The concern with using Mongo is that it's very lossy and fairly
> > unreliable as a data store for a number of reasons. (It's fine for
> > simple, low demand systems, but has complications once you really start
> > to hammer on it.)
> >
> > http://blog.schmichael.com/2011/11/05/failing-with-mongodb/
> > http://blog.engineering.kiip.me/post/20988881092/a-year-with-mongodb
> > etc.
> >
> > I'd suggest sticking with other DBs unless you're ok with loss or don't
> > plan on heavily exercising it.
> Seconded, have had severe data loss with mongo under high load at my
> previous job

aerogear-dev mailing list