Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"

Re^2: A Growing Dislike for SQL-OOP Mappers

by jk2addict (Chaplain)
on Aug 22, 2005 at 17:38 UTC ( #485739=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: A Growing Dislike for SQL-OOP Mappers
in thread A Growing Dislike for SQL-OOP Mappers

That's a lot of work, and it seems to me that the cost/benefit ratio is hard to justify. I'd say just pick an RDBMS-OO mapper you like (or even none at all, and use straight DBI) and then stick with it. If you really need to tear it out later and replace it, then you can create the required adapter layer in order to maintain your API. But if you never have to do that, then you just saved yourself a lot of work.

Quite a bit of work. But that's a matter of perspective depending on the situation. If I'm stuck with say for example Class::DBI, I still have to create a layer to seperate it's is-a junk from my top-level module. If I'm already doing the work to do that, the rest is easy.

As you point out, Rose::DB::Object is a little more polite about things. In the big scheme of things, I'd never need multiple SQL->OOP mappers. My frustration with isa-a and Class::DBI/DBIx::Class has turned into hacking/learning session on using multiple layers or abstracting out the is-a problems. Add 3 parts of Because I Can to that recipe. :-)

  • Comment on Re^2: A Growing Dislike for SQL-OOP Mappers

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://485739]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (3)
As of 2022-01-25 17:28 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    In 2022, my preferred method to securely store passwords is:

    Results (67 votes). Check out past polls.