Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 4 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I understand that JPA 2 is a specification and Hibernate is a tool for ORM. Also, I understand that Hibernate has more features than JPA 2. But from a practical point of view, what really is the difference?
I have experience using iBatis and now I'm trying to learn either Hibernate or JPA2. I picked up Pro JPA2 book and it keeps referring to "JPA provider". For example:
If you think a feature should be standardized, you should speak up
and request it from your JPA provider
This confuses me so I have a few questions:
Using JPA2 alone can I fetch data from DB by simply annotating my POJO's
Is JPA2 supposed to be used with a "JPA Provider" e.g TopLink or Hibernate? If so, then what's the benefit of using JPA2 + Hibernate as compared to JPA2 alone, or compared to Hibernate alone ?
Can you recommend a good practical JPA2 book. "Pro JPA2" seems more like a bible and reference on JPA2 (It doesn't get into Queries until the later half of the book). Is there a book that takes a problem/solution approach to JPA2?
As you state JPA is just a specification, meaning there is no implementation. You can annotate your classes as much as you would like with JPA annotations, however without an implementation nothing will happen. Think of JPA as the guidelines that must be followed or an interface, while Hibernate's JPA implementation is code that meets the API as defined by the JPA specification and provides the under the hood functionality.
When you use Hibernate with JPA you are actually using the Hibernate JPA implementation. The benefit of this is that you can swap out Hibernate's implementation of JPA for another implementation of the JPA specification. When you use straight Hibernate you are locking into the implementation because other ORMs may use different methods/configurations and annotations, therefore you cannot just switch over to another ORM.
For a more detailed description read my blog entry.
JPA is the dance, Hibernate is the dancer.
Some things are too hard to understand without a historical perspective of the language and understanding of the JCP.
Often there are third parties that develop packages that perform a function or fill a gap that are not part of the official JDK. For various reasons that function may become part of the Java JDK through the JCP (Java Community Process)
Hibernate (in 2003) provided a way to abstract SQL and allow developers to think more in terms of persisting objects (ORM). You notify hibernate about your Entity objects and it automatically generates the strategy to persist them. Hibernate provided an implementation to do this and the API to drive the implementation either through XML config or annotations.
The fundamental issue now is that your code becomes tightly coupled with a specific vendor(Hibernate) for what a lot of people thought should be more generic. Hence the need for a generic persistence API.
Meanwhile, the JCP with a lot of input from Hibernate and other ORM tool vendors was developing JSR 220 (Java Specification Request) which resulted in JPA 1.0 (2006) and eventually JSR 317 which is JPA 2.0 (2009). These are specifications of a generic Java Persistence API. The API is provided in the JDK as a set of interfaces so that your classes can depend on the javax.persistence and not worry about the particular vendor that is doing the work of persisting your objects. This is only the API and not the implementation. Hibernate now becomes one of the many vendors that implement the JPA 2.0 specification. You can code toward JPA and pick whatever compliant ORM vendor suits your needs.
There are cases where Hibernate may give you features that are not codified in JPA. In this case, you can choose to insert a Hibernate specific annotation directly in your class since JPA does not provide the interface to do that thing.
Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/16ovek/understanding_when_to_use_jpa_vs_hibernate/
JPA is the interface while Hibernate is the implementation.
Traditionally there have been multiple Java ORM solutions:
Hibernate
TopLink
JDO
each implementation defining its own mapping definition or client API. The JPA expert group gathered the best of all these tools and so they created the Java Persistence API standard.
A standard persistence API is very convenient from a client point of view, making it relatively easy to switch one implementation with the other (although in practice it's not that simple because on large projects you'll have to use specific non-standard features anyway).
The standard JPA has pushed Java ORM competition to a new level and this can only lead to better implementations.
As explained in my book, High-Performance Java Persistence, Hibernate offers features that are not yet supported by JPA:
extended identifier generators (hi/lo, pooled, pooled-lo)
transparent prepared statement batching
customizable CRUD (#SQLInsert, #SQLUpdate, #SQLDelete) statements
static or dynamic collection filters (e.g. #FilterDef, #Filter, #Where) and entity filters (e.g. #Where)
mapping properties to SQL fragments (e.g. #Formula)
immutable entities (e.g. #Immutable)
more flush modes (e.g. FlushMode.MANUAL, FlushMode.ALWAYS)
querying the second-level cache by the natural key of a given entity
entity-level cache concurrency strategies
(e.g. Cache(usage = CacheConcurrencyStrategy.READ_WRITE))
versioned bulk updates through HQL
exclude fields from optimistic locking check (e.g. #OptimisticLock(excluded = true))
versionless optimistic locking (e.g. OptimisticLockType.ALL, OptimisticLockType.DIRTY)
support for skipping (without waiting) pessimistic lock requests
support for Java 8 Date and Time
support for multitenancy
support for soft delete (e.g. #Where, #Filter)
These extra features allow Hibernate to address many persistence requirements demanded by large enterprise applications.
From the Wiki.
Motivation for creating the Java Persistence API
Many enterprise Java developers use lightweight persistent objects provided by open-source frameworks or Data Access Objects instead of entity beans: entity beans and enterprise beans had a reputation of being too heavyweight and complicated, and one could only use them in Java EE application servers. Many of the features of the third-party persistence frameworks were incorporated into the Java Persistence API, and as of 2006 projects like Hibernate (version 3.2) and Open-Source Version TopLink Essentials have become implementations of the Java Persistence API.
As told in the JCP page the Eclipse link is the Reference Implementation for JPA. Have look at this answer for bit more on this.
JPA itself has features that will make up for a standard ORM framework. Since JPA is a part of Java EE spec, you can use JPA alone in a project and it should work with any Java EE compatible Servers. Yes, these servers will have the implementations for the JPA spec.
Hibernate is the most popular ORM framework, once the JPA got introduced hibernate conforms to the JPA specifications. Apart from the basic set of specification that it should follow hibernate provides whole lot of additional stuff.
JPA is just a specification which needs concrete implementation.
The default implementation oracle provide is "Eclipselink" now. (Toplink is donated by Oracle to Eclipse foundation to merge with eclipselink)
(Reference : http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/toplink/index-085257.html
http://www.eclipse.org/org/press-release/20080317_Eclipselink.php
)
Using Eclipselink, one can be sure that the code is portable to any implementation if need arises.
Hibernate is also a full JPA implementation + MORE ( Sort of JPA Plus). Hibernate is super set of JPA with some extra Hibernate specific functionality.
So app developed in Hibernate may not be compatible when switched to other implementation.
Still hibernate is choice of majority of developers as JPA implementation and widely used.
Another JPA implementation is OpenJPA (openjpa.apache.org) which is an extension of Kodo implementation.
JPA : is just like an interface and have no concrete implementation of it to use functions which are there in JPA.
Hibernate : is just a JPA Provider which have the implementation of the functions in JPA and can have some extra functions which might not be there in JPA.
TIP : you can use
*combo 1* : JPA + JPA Provider(Hibernate)
*combo 2* : only Hiberante which does not need any interface
Combo 1 : is used when you feel that your hibernate is not giving better performance and want to change JPA Provider that time you don't have to write your JPA once again. You can write another JPA Provider ... and can change as many times you can.
Combo 2 : is used very less as when you are not going change your JPA Provider at any cost.
Visit http://blog-tothought.rhcloud.com//post/2, where your complete confusion will get clear.
JPA is the interface, Hibernate is one implementation of that interface.
JPA is a specification to standardize ORM-APIs. Hibernate is a vendor of a JPA implementation. So if you use JPA with hibernate, you can use the standard JPA API, hibernate will be under the hood, offering some more non standard functions.
See http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/entitymanager/reference/en/html_single/ and http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/annotations/reference/en/html_single/
JPA is just a specification.In market there are many vendors which implements JPA. Different types of vendors implement JPA in different way. so different types of vendors provide different functionality so choose proper vendor based on your requirements.
If you are using Hibernate or any other vendors instead of JPA than you can not easily move to hibernate to EclipseLink or OpenJPA to Hibernate.But If you using JPA than you just have to change provide in persistence XML file.So migration is easily possible in JPA.
JPA is an API, one which Hibernate implements.Hibernate predates JPA. Before JPA, you write native hibernate code to do your ORM. JPA is just the interface, so now you write JPA code and you need to find an implementation. Hibernate happens to be an implementation.
So your choices are this:
hibernate, toplink, etc...
The advantage to JPA is that it allows you to swap out your implementation if need be. The disadvantage is that the native hibernate/toplink/etc... API may offer functionality that the JPA specification doesn't support.
While JPA is the specification, Hibernate is the implementation provider that follows the rules dictated in the specification.
Java - its independence is not only from the operating system, but also from the vendor.
Therefore, you should be able to deploy your application on different application servers.
JPA is implemented in any Java EE- compliant application server and it allows to swap application servers, but then the implementation is also changing. A Hibernate application may be easier to deploy on a different application server.
JPA is a specification that you implement in your data layer to perform db opertations, OR mappings and other required tasks.
Since it is just a specification, you need a tool to have it implemented. That tool can be either Hibernate, TopLink, iBatis, spring-data etc.
You don't necessarily require JPA if you are using Hibernate in your Data Layer. But if you use JPA specification for Hibernate, then it will make switching to other ORM tools like iBatis, TopLink easy in future, because the specification is common for others as well.
*(if you remember, you do import javax.persistence.*; when you use annotations for OR mapping (like #Id, #Column, #GeneratedValue etc.) in Hibernate, that's where you are using JPA under Hibernate, you can use JPA's #Query & other features as well)
JPA is a Java API specification which describes the management of relational data in applications using Java Platform. where as Hibernate is a ORM (Object Relational Mapping) library which follows JPA specification.
You can think JPA as a set of Rules which is implemented by Hibernate.
JPA is JSR i.e. Java Specification Requirement to implement Object Relational Mapping which has got no specific code for its implementation. It defines certain set of rules for for accessing, persisting and managing the data between Java objects and the relational databaseWith its introduction, EJB was replaced as It was criticized for being heavyweight by the Java developer community.
Hibernate is one of the way JPA can be implemented using te guidelines.Hibernate is a high-performance Object/Relational persistence and query service which is licensed under the open source GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) .The benefit of this is that you can swap out Hibernate's implementation of JPA for another implementation of the JPA specification. When you use straight Hibernate you are locking into the implementation because other ORMs may use different methods/configurations and annotations, therefore you cannot just switch over to another ORM.
JPA is just a specification which needs concrete implementation. The default implementation provided by oracle is "Eclipselink" now. Toplink is donated by Oracle to Eclipse foundation to merge with eclipselink.
Using Eclipselink, one can be sure that the code is portable to any implementation if need arises. Hibernate is also a full JPA implementation + MORE. Hibernate is super set of JPA with some extra Hibernate specific functionality. So application developed in Hibernate may not be compatible when switched to other implementation. Still hibernate is choice of majority of developers as JPA implementation and widely used.
Another JPA implementation is OpenJPA, which is an extension of Kodo implementation.
JPA vs Hibernate
I try to explain in very easy words.
Suppose you need a car as we all know their are several A class manufacturer like MERCEDES, BMW , AUDI etc.
Now in above statement CAR(is a specification) as every car have common features like thing with 4 wheels and can be driven on road is car...so its like JPA.
And MERCEDES, BMW , AUDI etc are just using common car feature and adding functionality according to their customer base so they are implementing the car specification like hibernate , iBATIS etc.
So by this common features goes to jpa and hibernate is just an implementation according to their jboss need.
1 more thing
JPA includes some basic properties so in future if you want to change hibernate to any other implementation you can easily switch without much headache and for those basic properties includes JPA annotations which can work for any implementation technology, JPQL queries.
So mainly we implement hibernate with JPA type technology just for in case we want to switch our implementation according to client need plus you will write less code as some common features are involved in JPA.
If someone still not clear then you can comment as i m new on stack overflow.
Thank you
JPA is just a specification while Hibernate is one of the JPA provider i.e hibernate is implementing various things mentioned in JPA contract.
JPA or Java Persistence API is a standard specification for ORM implementations whereas Hibernate is the actual ORM implementation or framework.
JPA is Java Persistence API. Which Specifies only the specifications for APIs. Means that the set of rules and guidelines for creating the APIs. If says another context, It is set of standards which provides the wrapper for creating those APIs , can be use for accessing entity object from database. JPA is provided by oracle.When we are going to do database access , we definitely needs its implementation. Means JPA specifies only guidelines for implementing APIs. Hibernate is a JPA provider/Vendor who responsible for implementing that APIs. Like Hibernate TopLink and Open JPA is some of examples of JPA API providers. So we uses JPA specified standard APIs through hibernate.
Figuratively speaking JPA is just interface, Hibernate/TopLink - class (i.e. interface implementation).
You must have interface implementation to use interface. But you can use class through interface, i.e. Use Hibernate through JPA API or you can use implementation directly, i.e. use Hibernate directly, not through pure JPA API.
Good book about JPA is "High-Performance Java Persistence" of Vlad Mihalcea.
What are the main differences between Hibernate and Spring Data JPA?
When should we not use Hibernate or Spring Data JPA?
Also, when may Spring JDBC template perform better than Hibernate and Spring Data JPA?
Hibernate is a JPA implementation, while Spring Data JPA is a JPA data access abstraction. Spring Data JPA cannot work without a JPA provider.
Spring Data offers a solution to the DDD Repository pattern or the legacy GenericDao custom implementations. It can also generate JPA queries on your behalf through method name conventions.
With Spring Data, you may use Hibernate, EclipseLink, or any other JPA provider. A very interesting benefit of using Spring or Java EE is that you can control transaction boundaries declaratively using the #Transactional annotation.
Spring JDBC is much more lightweight, and it's intended for native querying, and if you only intend to use JDBC alone, then you are better off using Spring JDBC to deal with the JDBC verbosity.
Therefore, Hibernate and Spring Data are complementary rather than competitors.
There are 3 different things we are using here :
JPA : Java persistence api which provide specification for persisting, reading, managing data from your java object to relations in database.
Hibernate: There are various provider which implement jpa. Hibernate is one of them. So we have other provider as well. But if using jpa with spring it allows you to switch to different providers in future.
Spring Data JPA : This is another layer on top of jpa which spring provide to make your life easy.
So lets understand how spring data jpa and spring + hibernate works-
Spring Data JPA:
Let's say you are using spring + hibernate for your application. Now you need to have dao interface and implementation where you will be writing crud operation using SessionFactory of hibernate. Let say you are writing dao class for Employee class, tomorrow in your application you might need to write similiar crud operation for any other entity. So there is lot of boilerplate code we can see here.
Now Spring data jpa allow us to define dao interfaces by extending its repositories(crudrepository, jparepository) so it provide you dao implementation at runtime. You don't need to write dao implementation anymore.Thats how spring data jpa makes your life easy.
I disagree SpringJPA makes live easy. Yes, it provides some classes and you can make some simple DAO fast, but in fact, it's all you can do.
If you want to do something more than findById() or save, you must go through hell:
no EntityManager access in org.springframework.data.repository classes (this is basic JPA class!)
own transaction management (hibernate transactions disallowed)
huge problems with more than one datasources configuration
no datasource pooling (HikariCP must be in use as third party library)
Why own transaction management is an disadvantage? Since Java 1.8 allows default methods into interfaces, Spring annotation based transactions, simple doesn't work.
Unfortunately, SpringJPA is based on reflections, and sometimes you need to point a method name or entity package into annotations (!). That's why any refactoring makes big crash.
Sadly, #Transactional works for primary DS only :( So, if you have more than one DataSources, remember - transactions works just for primary one :)
What are the main differences between Hibernate and Spring Data JPA?
Hibernate is JPA compatibile, SpringJPA Spring compatibile. Your HibernateJPA DAO can be used with JavaEE or Hibernate Standalone, when SpringJPA can be used within Spring - SpringBoot for example
When should we not use Hibernate or Spring Data JPA? Also, when may Spring JDBC template perform better than Hibernate / Spring Data JPA?
Use Spring JDBC only when you need to use much Joins or when you need to use Spring having multiple datasource connections. Generally, avoid JPA for Joins.
But my general advice, use fresh solution—Daobab (http://www.daobab.io).
Daobab is my Java and any JPA engine integrator, and I believe it will help much in your tasks :)
Spring Data is a convenience library on top of JPA that abstracts away many things and brings Spring magic (like it or not) to the persistence store access. It is primarily used for working with relational databases. In short, it allows you to declare interfaces that have methods like findByNameOrderByAge(String name); that will be parsed in runtime and converted into appropriate JPA queries.
Its placement atop of JPA makes its use tempting for:
Rookie developers who don't know SQL or know it badly. This is a
recipe for disaster but they can get away with it if the project is trivial.
Experienced engineers who know what they do and want to spindle up things
fast. This might be a viable strategy (but read further).
From my experience with Spring Data, its magic is too much (this is applicable to Spring in general). I started to use it heavily in one project and eventually hit several corner cases where I couldn't get the library out of my way and ended up with ugly workarounds. Later I read other users' complaints and realized that these issues are typical for Spring Data. For example, check this issue that led to hours of investigation/swearing:
public TourAccommodationRate createTourAccommodationRate(
#RequestBody TourAccommodationRate tourAccommodationRate
) {
if (tourAccommodationRate.getId() != null) {
throw new BadRequestException("id MUST NOT be specified in a body during entry creation");
}
// This is an ugly hack required for the Room slim model to work. The problem stems from the fact that
// when we send a child entity having the many-to-many (M:N) relation to the containing entity, its
// information is not fetched. As a result, we get NPEs when trying to access all but its Id in the
// code creating the corresponding slim model. By detaching the entity from the persistence context we
// force the ORM to re-fetch it from the database instead of taking it from the cache
tourAccommodationRateRepository.save(tourAccommodationRate);
entityManager.detach(tourAccommodationRate);
return tourAccommodationRateRepository.findOne(tourAccommodationRate.getId());
}
I ended up going lower level and started using JDBI - a nice library with just enough "magic" to save you from the boilerplate. With it, you have complete control over SQL queries and almost never have to fight the library.
If you prefer simplicity and more control on SQL queries then I would suggest going with Spring Data/ Spring JDBC.
Its good amount of learning curve in JPA and sometimes difficult to debug issues.
On the other hand, while you have full control over SQL, it becomes much easier to optimize query and improve performance. You can easily share your SQL with DBA or someone who has a better understanding of Database.
Hibernate is implementation of "JPA" which is a specification for Java objects in Database.
I would recommend to use w.r.t JPA as you can switch between different ORMS.
When you use JDBC then you need to use SQL Queries, so if you are proficient in SQL then go for JDBC.
I found a lot of similar questions
Difference between Hibernate library and Hibernate JPA library
What's the difference between JPA and Hibernate?
similarity and difference between jpa and hibernate
but no one answers my next question. What diference between classical hibernate approach using org.hibernate.SessionFactory and JPA javax.persistence.EntityManager implementation? I heard, that this JPA implementation uses org.hibernate.SessionFactory and works like wrapper, is it real?
Indeed.
JPA is simply an API that allows you to abstract from the used persistence layer. Hibernate provides an implementation of the EntityManager interface that acts as an adapter - it uses the same underlying methods as a hibernate SessionManager.
The idea is that you could, for example, switch your implementation to Eclipse Link and not have to change any of your source code.
JPA is just a specification, meaning there is no implementation. You can annotate your classes as much as you would like with JPA annotations, however without an implementation nothing will happen. Think of JPA as the guidelines that must be followed or an interface, while Hibernate's JPA implementation is code that meets the API as defined by the JPA specification and provides the under the hood functionality.
When you use Hibernate with JPA you are actually using the Hibernate JPA implementation. The benefit of this is that you can swap out Hibernate's implementation of JPA for another implementation of the JPA specification. When you use straight Hibernate you are locking into the implementation because other ORMs may use different methods/configurations and annotations, therefore you cannot just switch over to another ORM.
Here is the answer of you question
What diference between classical hibernate approach using
org.hibernate.SessionFactory and JPA javax.persistence.EntityManager
implementation?
org.hibernate.SessionFactory
if you change the undeline ORM to IBatis(for e.g) you need to change the code as well.
javax.persistence.EntityManager
if you change the undeline ORM to IBatis(for e.g) you dont need to change the code.
To your First question,
JPA is a Java API specification which describes the management of relational data in applications using Java Platform. where as Hibernate is a ORM (Object Relational Mapping) library which follows JPA specification.
You can think JPA as a set of Rules which is implemented by Hibernate.
And answer for your second question,
As JPA is just an abstracted persistence layer it requires implementation. and Hibernate implements EntityManager interface that uses hibernate SessionManager.
In this way, you are completely detached from the implementation way, means you can switch to any of Hibernate or OenJPA or any other whenever you want, no additional code changes required.
Keyword
JPA
Hibernate
Location
Described in javax.persistence package
Described in org.hibernate
Intent
It's only Java speicification
It's is an implementation of JPA.
Functionality
It describes the handling of relational data in Java applications
Hibernate is an Obejct relational mapping (ORM) tool that is used to save the Java objects in the relational database system
Standard API
It's a standard API that permits to perform database operations
It is used in mapping Java data types with SQL data types and database tables
CRUD action
To perform CRUD actions for instances of mapped entity classes, it uses EntityManager interface which is supplied by EntityManagerFactory
To perform CRUD actions for instances of mapped entity classes, it uses Session interface which is supplied by SessionFactory
I am learning Java EE and I downloaded the eclipse with glassfish for the same. I saw some examples and also read the Oracle docs to know all about Java EE 5. Connecting to a database was very simple. I opened a dynamic web project, created a session EJB , I used EntityManager and with the get methods could access the stored data table.
For my next project I had create a simple class and then access some DB table. The very first problem I encountered was that the PersistenceUnit attribute would only be recognized by EJB,Servlet etc and not a simple java class. So then I could not use the EntityManager way(or can I?)
I was asked to go via the "JDBC" way. The very first problem I encountered was to get the connection to the DB. It seems all this must be hardcoded. I had a persistence.xml with which I could easily configure the data base connection. Even setting up a driver for the DB was easy. Also there no get/set methods in the JDBC for accessing table entities.
How do I understand JPA and persistence in relation to JDBC? What was JPA thought for? Why is there set/get methods? Can someone throw some light on the essence of these two and what are the pros/cons without "jargons"?? Please also suggest some links. A simple google search for JPA and JDBC differences led me to some sites full of "terminology" I couldn't follow :(
In layman's terms:
JDBC is a standard for Database Access
JPA is a standard for ORM
JDBC is a standard for connecting to a DB directly and running SQL against it - e.g SELECT * FROM USERS, etc. Data sets can be returned which you can handle in your app, and you can do all the usual things like INSERT, DELETE, run stored procedures, etc. It is one of the underlying technologies behind most Java database access (including JPA providers).
One of the issues with traditional JDBC apps is that you can often have some crappy code where lots of mapping between data sets and objects occur, logic is mixed in with SQL, etc.
JPA is a standard for Object Relational Mapping. This is a technology which allows you to map between objects in code and database tables. This can "hide" the SQL from the developer so that all they deal with are Java classes, and the provider allows you to save them and load them magically. Mostly, XML mapping files or annotations on getters and setters can be used to tell the JPA provider which fields on your object map to which fields in the DB. The most famous JPA provider is Hibernate, so it's a good place to start for concrete examples.
Other examples include OpenJPA, toplink, etc.
Under the hood, Hibernate and most other providers for JPA write SQL and use JDBC to read and write from and to the DB.
Main difference between JPA and JDBC is level of abstraction.
JDBC is a low level standard for interaction with databases. JPA is higher level standard for the same purpose. JPA allows you to use an object model in your application which can make your life much easier. JDBC allows you to do more things with the Database directly, but it requires more attention. Some tasks can not be solved efficiently using JPA, but may be solved more efficiently with JDBC.
JDBC is a much lower-level (and older) specification than JPA. In it's bare essentials, JDBC is an API for interacting with a database using pure SQL - sending queries and retrieving results. It has no notion of objects or hierarchies. When using JDBC, it's up to you to translate a result set (essentially a row/column matrix of values from one or more database tables, returned by your SQL query) into Java objects.
Now, to understand and use JDBC it's essential that you have some understanding and working knowledge of SQL. With that also comes a required insight into what a relational database is, how you work with it and concepts such as tables, columns, keys and relationships. Unless you have at least a basic understanding of databases, SQL and data modelling you will not be able to make much use of JDBC since it's really only a thin abstraction on top of these things.
JDBC is the predecessor of JPA.
JDBC is a bridge between the Java world and the databases world. In JDBC you need to expose all dirty details needed for CRUD operations, such as table names, column names, while in JPA (which is using JDBC underneath), you also specify those details of database metadata, but with the use of Java annotations.
So JPA creates update queries for you and manages the entities that you looked up or created/updated (it does more as well).
If you want to do JPA without a Java EE container, then Spring and its libraries may be used with the very same Java annotations.
The difference between JPA and JDBC is often the deciding factor, as the two database technologies take very different approaches to work with persistent data. JDBC, allows developers to construct database-driven Java programs utilizing object-oriented semantics
JPA is database-agnostic, meaning that the same code can be used in a variety of databases with few modifications. JPA serves as a layer of abstraction that hides the low-level JDBC calls from the developer, making database coding considerably easier
hibernate is implementation of JPA
hibernate you can see further details from here about jpa Query
JDBC is a layer of abstraction on top of vendor-specific relational DB drivers. Without JDBC you would have to deal with peculiarities of a specific DB (not much fun). JDBC, however, is too low-level and entails a lot of boilerplate code.
JPA is a specification of an ORM (just an interface). It's useless without an implementation.
ORM is a kind of framework concerned with saving and retrieving objects to/from the relational DB. There are many ORMs out there with different levels of abstraction. Some of them require manually-written SQL.
Some of ORMs implement JPA (Hibernate or EclipseLink, for example). Most of them are built on top of JDBC.
Such ORMs provide the maximum level of abstraction to the point you almost never have to write SQL queries. Some people love JPA-based ORMs (they reduce boilerplate), some hate (abstraction is leaky, specification is overly complex and there are lots of corner cases).
Java analogy:
class ORM extends JDBC implements JPA {
}
Persistence layers have protocols versions so abstractions also have versions therefore you need ranges of supported versions. It is version hell
I have been using Hibernate ORM, which is an implementation of the JPA specification to manage relational data. I have also heard of the JDO specification that supposed to do the same (manage relational data).
What are the fundamental differences between the two? Any code samples most appreciated. How does JDO integrate with other Java technology stacks e.g. EJB3?
Try these
JDO-JPA FAQ,
JDO or JPA,
JDO .v. JPA,
JDO .v. JPA - API,
JDO .v. JPA - ORM
JDO existed long before JPA, and has a wider scope. JPA is solely for RDBMS, and (even in JPA2) doesn't provide the full support that JDO provides. The links, and other posts in this forum should provide ample reading to explain all sides of the arguments.
--Andy (DataNucleus)
JPA was defined to unify and replace the previous existing Java persistence specs of EJB CMP and JDO. JPA was released as part of EJB 3.0, and is part of the Java EE spec supported by Oracle WebLogic, IBM Websphere, Redhat JBoss, and any other Java EE provider.
There are many leading products supporting JPA (TopLink/EclipseLink, Hibernate, OpenJPA, DataNucleus), but few to none supporting JDO or CMP. So, it seems JPA has done a good job of replacing both.
As for JPA only being RDBMS, that is entirely false, (even DataNucleus the only remaining JDO product that I am aware of, supports JPA on any non relational platform that it support JDO on).
There are also many other products that support JPA on non relational platforms, such as EclipseLink's NoSQL and EIS support (MongoDB, Oracle NoSQL, XML, legacy databases), Kundera, DataNucleus, even object databases such as ObjectDB that support JPA as their Java API.