Re: ORMs comparisons/complaints.
On 1/3/2014 10:58 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
On 03/01/14 15:34, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
I may sound a bit like the kid who claimed that the emperor had no
clothes, but let's be real: the object model is *not* broken when you
deal with relational.
Bollocks, and I mean that most sincerely, If you *really* think about it
and you're *really* honest with yourself can you think of one single
time when you designed a system that you *knew beforehand would persist
it's data in an RDBMS* where this knowledge didn't in some way, however
sub-consciously impact the decisions you made when you were designing
that system?
I think this may be a very good example of the type of argument that
Arved was thinking about.
1) There is really nothing sub-consciously flowing. If you do code
first, then you do the object model exactly like you would if it
were not to be persisted - there really is not any room for
influence from persistence - attributes and associations are
given by the problem domain. If you do database first, then
the object model is completely and very consciously determined
by the relational model.
2) Even in the cases where the relational model do impact the object
model, then that does not mean that the object model is broken.
3) And even if the object model were broken, then that would not
be any different with plain JDBC than ORM.
Arne