Our current database layout includes many tables that hold data that does not particularly conform to a business object - rather business objects are created using this data. The tables holding this data are not simple and have a lot of extra information so that the data can be analyzed.

My question is, does hibernate force us to create objects that represent each table in our database? For instance in order to create a "user" object I must create 30 other objects, each pertaining to an information table that a user might need, and then load them off the tables?

This really is a question of whether hibernate is a good choice for this type of database. It would seem straight JDBC would be a better idea for grabbing gobs of information from different tables that aren't really business objects and are rarely used by themselves., and stuffing them into beans.

Thanks in advance.

Your gonna need to be a little more specific here...


No idea what this means. All db tables are simple. They're just rows and columns. Can't get much simplier.


Of course not! Now, obviously, if you want Hibernate to manage a particular table or association your gonna have to tell Hibernate about it somehow.


Well, as you really haven't described anything pertinent about the schema, that would be a difficult question to answer.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. By not simple I mean they contain many columns of different types.

I guess my question is then if one has a couple business objects that need to be loaded with information from many other tables (that aren't particularly objects), how does one map those tables to specific parameters to our objects in hibernate?

More Specifically, I only want certain columns from that underlying data, not entire rows (which would make making objects for these tables make more sense)