Talk:Db4o

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Neutrality?[edit]

Large parts of this article are strongly biased towards db4o through the wording. This needs to be revised into more neutral speech. Looking at the history, the article was a stub before a large portion of it was edited by one person. Due to the nature of the edits and the wording, it appears to be someone employed by Versant, the makers of db4o.

No evidence of COI, please WP:AGF (COI tag removed) 190.193.103.129 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is evidence of WP:COI - the original author is a WP:SPA promoting db4o and PolePosition which geolocates at/near Versant's offices. -- samj _in ^out 10:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is fairly clear that this person is WP:SPA - all their edits are merely adding references to db4o or pole position. I think adding some valid criticisms/disadvantages/etc.. to the article would help bring it into balance.RebelBodhi (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled on to this page via https://github.com/mono/sharpen as there is a connection, and I found this page totally useless. I suggest radically trimming it. In particular, all the features and disadvantages don't seem to merit the space that they take up. If the contributor is from db40, that demonstrates a possible lack of value in this topic.69.126.8.236 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages[edit]

There were a lot of unsourced disadvantages listed. I've tagged them as needing a source. My guess is at least some of these are original research, and may need deleting.

One of them I've tagged 'dubious'. That is the claim that the LINQ implementation doesn't support 'OrderBy' clauses. The documentation here seems to suggest it does, although it doesn't explicitly state it. Unless some justification for this item is provided, I'll delete it shortly. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the claim that one needs an original binary or source code to recover the data seems dubious: the documentation suggests here that you can do so using their GenericReflector API. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed most of these. I think 20 months is more than enough time for any critics to have identified reliable sources discussing these problems. I left behind the relatively uncontentious notion that data isn't deleted without a defrag operation, which I'm sure can be sourced to the project's own documentation if necessary, and added new tags for that and another item that had escaped tagging previously. JulesH (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of old bugs[edit]

Please discuss here whether to keep this paragraph. The info seems relevant to me.
"Before version 7.10.x the system was prone to Enum Duplication bug where storing n objects having an Enum field with m values would cause m*n Enum objects stored in the data files, leading to data files of several hundreds of GB in very short time^{[citation needed]}"
- 05:38, 5 July 2012‎ User:Anthony Appleyard
Seriously? Then let's mention all of the bugs that were fixed between 6.x versions and version 8, no? This is completely ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.5.14 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't see any other software articles discussing fixed bugs, except those that are extremely well known or very important. A problem that lead to larger-than-expected files being created, and presumably slower-than-expected performance, doesn't seem like something that needs historical documentation. JulesH (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported[edit]

db4o is no longer supported. The web sites linking to db4o have all been taken down. The following quote is from google cache because even that site has been taken down.

"With regret we have to announce that Actian decided not to actively pursue and promote the commercial db4o product offering for new customers any longer. Since the db4o dual licensing model allows for the free usage of the community edition of db4o for non-commercial purposes, you have the opportunity to continue to use it for your non-commercial applications or even fork it to provide support for the community. You can find the subversion repository for a limited time under https://source.db4o.com/db4o. Actian will continue to provide commercial licenses and support for existing customers with active support contract."^[1]

I think the main page should be updated to reflect the current state of db4o. Conzar (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

"was tested on JavaFX"[edit]

This makes no sense. FX has nothing to do with any database. It depends if the lang support db4o and not any other API that ist supported by this lang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:319F:4000:530:A9DE:362A:9671 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[1]