9.3 comparison of Domino/Notes toolkits
According to the above analysis, when comparing the Domino/Notes toolkit, we should consider their processing capabilities for unstructured data and their dependence on the Domino/Notes platform, consider the application and restrictions of Domino/Notes security features.
At the same time, the performance and efficiency of tools, application scalability, support for different operating systems, cross-platform support, security, support for Domino/Notes Versions, coding efficiency, and code maintainability will also be considered..
9.3.1 support for unstructured data processing capabilities
|
Support for the object structure of notes data |
Ability to operate the notes Design |
Ability to manipulate the RTF domain |
Add any field |
C API |
★★★ |
★★★★★ |
★★★★★ |
P |
C ++ API |
★★★★★ |
★★★★★ |
★★★★★ |
P |
Java/CORBA |
★★★ |
★★ |
★★★ |
P |
Lddj |
Not Supported |
★ |
★ |
Not Supported |
Notessql |
Not Supported |
★ |
★ |
Not Supported |
Dxl |
★★★ |
★★★ |
★★ |
P |
9.3.2 support and dependency for the Domino/Notes Platform
Install notes/Domino |
Supported versions |
Server Requirements |
C API |
P |
All Versions |
C ++ API |
P |
All Versions |
Java/CORBA |
Not supported by the CORBA method |
R5.03 + HTTP and diiop services |
Lddj |
P |
R5.0 + |
Notessql |
P |
4.6.4 or later |
Dxl |
P |
R5.0 + |
9.3.3 security and access control
|
User identity |
Security |
Control ACL |
C API |
Notes ID |
Notes Security Mechanism |
P |
C ++ API |
Notes ID |
Notes Security Mechanism |
P |
Java |
Notes ID |
Notes Security Mechanism |
P |
CORBA |
User/program provision |
Simple Password Verification |
P |
Lddj |
Notes ID |
Notes Security Mechanism |
Not Supported |
Notessql |
Notes ID |
Notes Security Mechanism with additional security control |
Not Supported |
Dxl |
Notes ID |
Notes Security Mechanism |
P |
9.3.4 support for the operating system
|
Windows |
Linux |
Solaris |
Mac |
HP-UX |
AIX |
AS/400 |
S390 |
C API |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
C ++ API |
P |
P |
P |
|
|
P |
P |
|
Java/CORBA |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
Lddj |
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notessql |
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dxl |
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.3.5 development capability and data processing efficiency
|
Data access efficiency |
Design Control Capability |
Permission control capability |
Modify the Notes Client |
Domino additional task |
Extended Event Management |
C API |
★★★★ |
★★★★ |
★★★★ |
P |
P |
P |
C ++ API |
★★★★ |
★★★★ |
★★★ |
|
P |
|
Java/CORBA |
★★ |
★★ |
★★ |
|
|
|
Lddj |
★★ |
★ |
|
|
|
|
Notessql |
★★ |
★ |
|
|
|
|
Dxl |
★★★★ |
★★★ |
★★ |
|
|
|
9.3.6 development efficiency
|
Development Speed |
Code readability |
Maintainability |
C API |
★ |
★ |
★ |
C ++ API |
★★★ |
★★★ |
★★★ |
Java/CORBA |
★★★★ |
★★★★★ |
★★★★ |
Lddj |
★★★★★ |
★★★★★ |
★★★★★ |
Notessql |
★★★★★ |
★★★★ |
★★★★ |
Dxl |
★★ |
★★★ |
★★★ |
9.3.7 others
From the maturity of each toolkit, C/C ++ API development has the longest and most stable time. Notessql has also undergone multiple version revisions and is relatively mature. Java/CORBA toolkit and lddj have not been developed for a long time. They are not very easy to use and are not very mature. Other sdks, such as for com and LSX, are developed for specific needs. Version 1.0 is hardly updated after release.
According to the latest release time of the Toolkit, it is also relatively active in C/C ++, notessql, lddj, Java/CORBA and other toolkit. Java-related toolkit updates are slower than expected. It may be related to the fact that Domino/Notes is currently being transferred from a traditional platform to a J2EE platform and is not yet stable.
Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits Overview (1)
Overview of Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits (2) c API
Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits Summary (iii) c ++ API
Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits Overview (4) Java
Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits Summary (5) lddj
Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits Summary (6) Others
Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits Summary (7) Analysis and Comparison
Overview of Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits (8) Analysis and Comparison
Lotus Domino/Notes toolkits Summary (9)