> It’s common to instead use adapter libraries that map a domain representation to a database representation, such as ORMs. However, such an abstraction frequently leaks and causes issues. ...
FWIW, I'm creating a tool (strategy) that is neither an ORM or an abstraction layer (eg JOOQ) or template-based (eg myBatis). Just type safe adapters for normal SQL statements.
Will be announcing an alpha release "Any Week Now".
If anyone has an idea for how to monetize yet another database client library, I'm all ears. I just need to eat, pay rent, and buy dog kibble.
>If anyone has an idea for how to monetize yet another database client library, I'm all ears. I just need to eat, pay rent, and buy dog kibble
FWIW jOOQ's model worked great from a consumer/end-user point of view. I got to learn the whole library with no real strings attached, and then pay to adapt it/support it on Big Fucking Databases(TM) as projects required it. Their site and documentation is also quite pleasant.
In a way it feels like double-piggybacking: Microsoft, Oracle, et al. spend a lot on mindshare to make sure technical leads choose those respective stacks. Then the army of developers/consultants, required to get the promised ROI out of those stacks, inevitably have to go looking for tools. Be there to sell them the shovels. It helps if they are already familiar with it. (Free OSS adapters / "community" editions, etc., or even just very generous "evaluation" versions with no real effort to police use in a lab environment.)
Not sure how successful jOOQ has been financially, but considering they've been around for many years at this point, I have to imagine it's worked out well enough to pay for the lights and kibble?
The only other "dev tool" company I've enjoyed working with _more_ has been JetBrains. (The recent AI plugin not-withstanding.)
The domain knowledge embodied in JOOQ is kind of daunting. Truly huge.
Of the current SQL client API tools, mine is most like sqlc. Mine's major improvement, IMHO of course; but concept and workflow are comparable.
What do you think of paying to use such a tool for builds? eg Deployed to a CI/CD pipeline.
Free to use for sql-fiddle, personal, desktop, FOSS, etc. But once a project starts to use a tool for "real work", that's proof of value. Right?
Part of my just wants to want to do shareware. I published shareware in the early 1990s. Since I have the biz acumen of a sea cucumber, I just did the work and let people decide. It was great gig while it lasted.
I guess today's equiv would be some kind of patreon. My reluctance there is the PR/promotion/social media part. I have trouble even imagining what that'd look like.
> Not sure how successful jOOQ has been financially, but considering they've been around for many years at this point, I have to imagine it's worked out well enough to pay for the lights and kibble?
> It’s common to instead use adapter libraries that map a domain representation to a database representation, such as ORMs. However, such an abstraction frequently leaks and causes issues. ...
FWIW, I'm creating a tool (strategy) that is neither an ORM or an abstraction layer (eg JOOQ) or template-based (eg myBatis). Just type safe adapters for normal SQL statements.
Will be announcing an alpha release "Any Week Now".
If anyone has an idea for how to monetize yet another database client library, I'm all ears. I just need to eat, pay rent, and buy dog kibble.